http://www.flickr.com/photos/davethegame/3263189483/in/set-72157613512677768/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davethegame/3264016014/in/set-72157613512677768/
Really, never thought I would.
Can't believe they really got me interested in playing a GNOME.
Really, never thought I would.
Ditto! Very engaging fluff. Previously, I pretty much thought it would be silly to actually play a gnome, but these are interesting.
Visually, they're very short elves with a disorder that causes premature aging. (They live 300 years, but have wrinkles and white hair after 100? Come on!)
And the art? What sick bastard decided that a woman the height of your average five-year-old should be a posing sex-kitten in a skin-tight red leather catsuit? With a big hole just barely far enough above the crotch to avoid being actual porn? I liked that gnomes in previous editions could be cute and have attractive personalities, without having to somehow fit the contrived 'elvish' standards of (especially female) sexual attractiveness.
Then we have a race who is so culturally anxious to avoid notice that adult gnomes who let themselves become the centre of attention in a crowd are socially ostracised, yet they get a charisma bonus and favour the bard and sorcerer classes! Argh!
The rest of the fluff can be summed up as: their history is the same as the dwarfs, except replace the natural world with the Feywild and slavery to giants with slavery to fomorians - oh, and they're total cowards so their ill-treatment engendered fear and avoidance rather than enmity and ass-kicking.
Well, flavour is mutable. I won't be using this new 'standard' appearance or background for gnomes in my games.
Ugh.
Visually, they're very short elves with a disorder that causes premature aging. (They live 300 years, but have wrinkles and white hair after 100? Come on!)
This is the only part of your post I agree with - the pre-mature aging is silly.
And the art? What sick bastard decided that a woman the height of your average five-year-old should be a posing sex-kitten in a skin-tight red leather catsuit? With a big hole just barely far enough above the crotch to avoid being actual porn? I liked that gnomes in previous editions could be cute and have attractive personalities, without having to somehow fit the contrived 'elvish' standards of (especially female) sexual attractiveness.
They're small, but they're still normally proportioned, not child-like. There's no reason they can't be sexy or handsome.
Then we have a race who is so culturally anxious to avoid notice that adult gnomes who let themselves become the centre of attention in a crowd are socially ostracised, yet they get a charisma bonus and favour the bard and sorcerer classes! Argh!
Yes ... Cunning Bards and eitehr type of Sorcerer lends themselves perfectly to the whole deceptive/trickster angle. And charisma is more than just force of personality. Bluff is keyed off it, remember?
The rest of the fluff can be summed up as: their history is the same as the dwarfs, except replace the natural world with the Feywild and slavery to giants with slavery to fomorians - oh, and they're total cowards so their ill-treatment engendered fear and avoidance rather than enmity and ass-kicking.
Half the races are now former slaves or slave masters. And there's nothing stopping a Gnome from being an ass-kicker - going against the racial norms is what adventurers are supposed to do.
Well, flavour is mutable. I won't be using this new 'standard' appearance or background for gnomes in my games.
That's your choice. Frankly I love the new standard. Except for the ridiculous insistence that gnomes shy away from tech. [u]That/U] is what I'll be ignoring.
Except for the ridiculous insistence that gnomes shy away from tech.
That's not what it says.
"They are inventive and resourceful, although they have little interest in or aptitude with the kind of technology found in human cities."
They don't care about HUMAN technology, but that doesn't indicate a racial rejection of other technology, particularly their own.
I have a quick question. What races have been slaves?
Everyone keeps saying that half the races are slaves now but the only ones I know are Dwarfs and now Gnomes.
I think one of the possible origins they gave the Half-Orc involved slavery and Humans have been slaves but humans have been everything. If I asked what races have been _____ people could say Humans without even seeing whats in the blank.
So I know its a bit off topic but can someone list the character races that have been slaves.
P.S. Love the new Gnome. (It's on topic now right? :D)
I believe the "appearance of age" after 100 years is a nod to many tales about various small fey creatures, who share a lot of thematic traits with gnomes and who are often depicted as wizened, with wrinkles and grey hair. Personally, I think it's great that we have a fey race that doesn't have "you stay young and beautiful forever and ever" as one of it's assumed racial characteristics.
I completely agree. I never thought that gnomes could be worthwhile, and now I'm itching to find a place for them in my campaign setting.
The only thing that irks me is the whole "no tech" thing being so common in D&D these days... Then again this is just a design decision to keep the whole of D&D as a basic fantasy setting, which can easily be ammended for more tech-savvy or gadgetry focussed games and campaigns.
Cheers!
Captn M.
"Oh No! Why do Gnome look like small elves? It'd be nice of 1 feywild creature didn't have the typical elf-like beauty standard!'
And then in the same breath...
"Oh No! Why do they get all wrinkled when they go beyond a 100? Why couldn't they be young and pretty forever like elves!"
...
1. What's with the permenant bad hair day? Can't they just get some product or a comb to fix that problem?
2. Again with the slave thing? Man, first the dwarves now the gnomes. Man, Gith Pride man. Posers.
That said, NICE race.
W
The only thing that irks me is the whole "no tech" thing being so common in D&D these days... Then again this is just a design decision to keep the whole of D&D as a basic fantasy setting, which can easily be ammended for more tech-savvy or gadgetry focussed games and campaigns.
Cheers!
Captn M.
I was taking it as a not-particularly-subtle way of saying 'These Are Not Tinker Gnomes, Dammit!' *whack upside the back of the head* You don't want to know how many times I have had to remind people that gnomes not from Krynn do not build stupid Rube Goldberg inventions (not to mention how many times I've had to tell people Halflings are neither Kender nor Hobbits ...).
The gnomes taking up stealth and trickery rather than kickassery makes sense to me. Dwarves are, if nothing else, tough. Gnomes are not. If the gnomes were to go on a direct offensive, they would not fare as well. Sneaky guerilla tactics and the like fit them much better. Also, it's drawing from the only campaign setting where gnomes were ever interesting, Eberron. You do not mess with the Zilargo spy network.
Is there a balance reason for this? If not, I'll probably give them a speed of 6 in my own game. Am I just not seeing something?
Warden also wear Hide, so that's not a problem... beside the fact that Gnome have terrible stats to be Warden.
Fighter? Yeah, they're screwd... but again, gnome fighters would be terrible even without this problem.
Paladin is the same, although I guess they do have +2cha, making charisma based paladin the only real class that get hurts by this.
Keep in mind that Gnome's ability aren't really design for Defenders at all. Going invisible and reactive stealth aren't good tool for someone who wants to attract attention and get hit instead of his friend.
So even if you give them a speed of 6... I'm not quite sure what's that's going to change >_>
They'd good as Swordmage actually.
Warden also wear Hide, so that's not a problem... beside the fact that Gnome have terrible stats to be Warden.
Fighter? Yeah, they're screwd... but again, gnome fighters would be terrible even without this problem.
Paladin is the same, although I guess they do have +2cha, making charisma based paladin the only real class that get hurts by this.
Keep in mind that Gnome's ability aren't really design for Defenders at all. Going invisible and reactive stealth aren't good tool for someone who wants to attract attention and get hit instead of his friend.
So even if you give them a speed of 6... I'm not quite sure what's that's going to change >_>
You got me on the defender part; still, I just don't quite get the 5 squares movement thing. It just seems weird, is all. Still, it's not world-destroyingly bad, otherwise someone smarter than I would have said something earlier. I'll still probably give them 6 Squares of movement, though, just because the 5 kinda rubs me the wrong way...
I just noticed something; why is their speed only 5 squares? I mean, I get that they're short and all, but Halflings still get 6, and Gnomes don't get the Encumbered speed thing like dwarves do, which means a Gnome in Heavy Armor can only move 4 squares per round...
Is there a balance reason for this? If not, I'll probably give them a speed of 6 in my own game. Am I just not seeing something?
Good question,I reckon the speed of 5 is to have another difference between Halfling and Gnome. The reason I don't like it much is indeed the speed difference between the gnome and the rest of the half-pint adventurers (yep, even Kobolds and Goblins get a speed of 6).
I don't see much balance reasons so far, unless Gnomes get some more uses out of their Fade Away racial power, or other feyish methods of movement and improved invisibility. So, I guess these feats might make up for the relatively low movement, and I suppose - or at least hope - that gnomes can also get a feat to ignore the speed penalty imposed by heavy armor.
For instance, for my gnome accountant (warlord), the heavier types of armor required by Tactician's Armor (which I like despite it being considered underpowered) are so far a no-go... but if I could rely on a feat to ignore the speed penalty and get a nifty extra to boot (kinda like Gnomish Armor Expertise - the defensive equivalent of Dwarf Weapon Training)
After all, a frickin' gnome in frickin' chainmail is the frickin' poster boy for the racial write-up... (Unless it's the case of the Dwarf Warlord poster boy all over again: another strange combination of choice)
Cheers!
Captn M.
Love the art. After looking at this, I may finally want to play a Gnome.
ditto...
That said, I'm still excited about Gnomes this time around.
This current gnome has nearly nothing new. If they had asked me to make a unified gnome race taking from the various subraces and from the various archetypes of gnome that exist, I would have come with this, it's really not at all so different from the old gnome, and it's just as awesome as it was, just better presented (which is a really smart thing).
I think it was just a matter of presentation, but still I'm surprised how so many people couldn't "get past it" and see all the good sides of the gnome. Maybe it's even the name of the race...
However, I think they got one thing particularly wrong. The art's background/setting and tone. They're from the feywild, dwell under trees and they give us gnomes that seem to be going home after clubbing with a big hangover and badass attitude... If they gave them also wicked smiles than it could have been good but I don't know... Still, happy that it can appeal to many. Me, I didn't and don't need the art to see the awesomeness of them...
I could see some feats, or Gnome specific PPs based around illusion as well.
I think it was just a matter of presentation, but still I'm surprised how so many people couldn't "get past it" and see all the good sides of the gnome. Maybe it's even the name of the race...
Yeah, I was also a bit confused at the "gnomes are suddenly cool" vibe. Presentation is a pretty big deal, I guess. The loss of prestidigitation bugs me a little, but I guess this makes it possible to have gnomes without magical grooming.
Yeah, I was also a bit confused at the "gnomes are suddenly cool" vibe. Presentation is a pretty big deal, I guess. The loss of prestidigitation bugs me a little, but I guess this makes it possible to have gnomes without magical grooming.
The magical side of gnomes aside I think it's the 'option' of not playing the mirthful gimmicky gnome annoyances as PC tropes. If I wanted to play a emotionally scared ninja backstabber who doesn't like being called cute. I can. Yay.
The magical side of gnomes aside I think it's the 'option' of not playing the mirthful gimmicky gnome annoyances as PC tropes. If I wanted to play a emotionally scared ninja backstabber who doesn't like being called cute. I can. Yay.
Not trying to be polemic, but my point, and maybe Arcane Guyver's one too, was that art and presentation aside, you could play a non-cute gnome before too. And again not to be critical of the new material (which is awesome), the cute factor has actually been officialised for the first time with this incarnation, not with 3rd edition which actually tried to make them serious. I don't remember the fluff of 1st edition, but I'm nearly sure 2nd edition gnomes were very much like 3rd. So I think they actually got "cuter" speaking of fluff only.
One thing I would like to see a change of is in the style of what it looks like. I much preferred the way it looked in the cartoon. It wouldn't be hard making a realistic looking depiction of that. But well that is a easy refluff.
Speaking of that cartoon, am I the only one who thinks it would be hilarious to get a new cartoon were mister "I'm a monster" gets the news that he's a PC race again dropped on him suddenly? Maybe while he's out hanging with his monster "chums" who will be all to happy to use the excuse that he's a PC now to take out their frustrations over how annoying he's been. (note: this isn't gnome hate, I loved the little bugger back in 3.5 and still do. I just think that it would funny, plus I love the on the set cartoons)
Not trying to be polemic, but my point, and maybe Arcane Guyver's one too, was that art and presentation aside, you could play a non-cute gnome before too. And again not to be critical of the new material (which is awesome), the cute factor has actually been officialised for the first time with this incarnation, not with 3rd edition which actually tried to make them serious. I don't remember the fluff of 1st edition, but I'm nearly sure 2nd edition gnomes were very much like 3rd. So I think they actually got "cuter" speaking of fluff only.
My hatred for gnomes most useless ratial powers in 3rd ed and dragonlance I hated just about everything about DL but especially kender and tinker gnomes. In previous edditions I never saw a gnome character that was not some sort of horrible horrible joke.
My hatred for gnomes most useless ratial powers in 3rd ed and dragonlance I hated just about everything about DL but especially kender and tinker gnomes. In previous edditions I never saw a gnome character that was not some sort of horrible horrible joke.
Just for curiosity, how do you see hobbits then? My point is, not only because a race doesn't make for screamingly "awesome" characters that race can be considered a joke. Because by this logic we could just play powerful elves, steel-hard dragonborns and slick tieflings.
I'm sure gnomes make fun of those characters just as real-life mature people make fun of pumped up kids. :D
What are these things? These are not gnomes they are some strange cutified creatures that have had the gnome name slapped onto them. Where are my mechanicaly adept short hunched large nosed gnomes that have been so prevelant in my old 2e games. Certainly gnomes had their illusions but gnomes also had their mechanical devices, which were often little function and more bells and whistles, where are those guys? Gnomes should look like this:
They have been exiled back to Dragonlance where they belong.
Bel
For what reason? I liked the older kind of gnomes, I played them often, they were fun. These new gnomes look more like they've been taylor made to fit a 12 year old audience, is 4e really marketed to such a younger croud that you have to mutalate gnomes into what these 4e things they are calling gnomes are?
So what does he do? He plays a ******* hobbit and we both have fun. Gnomes have changed very little mechanically from 3E, so you are essentially complaining about art and fluff.
Gnomes have changed very little mechanically from 3E, so you are essentially complaining about art and fluff.
I avoided 3.x with a passion, go back to 2e which is the kind of gnome I want to see back (like I said in my first post here), there is a lot more than fluff changes between those gnomes and these 4e creatures.
I avoided 3.x with a passion, go back to 2e which is the kind of gnome I want to see back (like I said in my first post here), there is a lot more than fluff changes between those gnomes and these 4e creatures.
Then just keep playing 2e and you don't have to worry about it.
…I miss The Companions of the Dead.
Ditto.
I hope the PHB that introduces the Shadow power source includes them as a Gnome racial paragon path.
For what reason? I liked the older kind of gnomes, I played them often, they were fun. These new gnomes look more like they've been taylor made to fit a 12 year old audience, is 4e really marketed to such a younger croud that you have to mutalate gnomes into what these 4e things they are calling gnomes are?
I have not been twelve in seventeen years...(Wow I am getting old...), and I love the new Gnomes...infact I threw a little party with the line about not likeing human tech...no more tinkers in default D&D...
Gnomes are more like the fey cousin of the dwarf...
I avoided 3.x with a passion, go back to 2e which is the kind of gnome I want to see back (like I said in my first post here), there is a lot more than fluff changes between those gnomes and these 4e creatures.
There weren't any hobbits in 3.5 either.
What did 2E gnomes have that you for some reason can't have on your gnomes anymore?
There weren't any hobbits in 3.5 either.
What did 2E gnomes have that you for some reason can't have on your gnomes anymore?
I could care less about hobbits to be honest. But the 2e gnomes had innate magic resistance which they've now lost. They've lost the identity of the gnome illusionist with the loss of the illusionist though they still have illusion like powers. They've lost the entire concept of the tinkerer completely. They have lost the benifits associated with being a race that dwells underground. They were never charismatic, the bonus to charisma makes no sense, should be dexterity. They should not be fey anymore than dwarves, 2e gnomes were cousins to the dwarves, 4e gnomes are to eladrin what halflings are to humans. I can keep going but my point boils down to this, between the 2e and 4e gnomes you have next to no fluff in common, what little there is revolves around illusions, they have no racial features in common, and they don't look at all alike, so 2e and 4e gnomes are about as different as dwarves and elves, that is my issue.
I could care less about hobbits to be honest. But the 2e gnomes had innate magic resistance which they've now lost. They've lost the identity of the gnome illusionist with the loss of the illusionist though they still have illusion like powers. They've lost the entire concept of the tinkerer completely. They have lost the benifits associated with being a race that dwells underground. They were never charismatic, the bonus to charisma makes no sense, should be dexterity. They should not be fey anymore than dwarves, 2e gnomes were cousins to the dwarves, 4e gnomes are to eladrin what halflings are to humans. I can keep going but my point boils down to this, between the 2e and 4e gnomes you have next to no fluff in common, what little there is revolves around illusions, they have no racial features in common, and they don't look at all alike, so 2e and 4e gnomes are about as different as dwarves and elves, that is my issue.
With them being put off from the first PHb because the developers recognized them to be messed up, did you really expect them to be like those in 2e, the edition that saw their "messing up" the most? If yes, you surely know how to become disappointed.
the edition that saw their "messing up" the most
What do you mean by that?
I was expecting more of a change! I mean, we don't have that odds-n-ends-sounding "talks to burrowing animals" ability (yay). I assume ghost sounds has some fun applications, but it seems so narrowly useful to me. I thought that was why gnomes had so few fans in 3e: all their abilities seemed like that, and they were repeats of wizard abilities.
What is added is Fade Away, Reactive Stealth (which sounds little but I imagine is very useful), and that they are shorter than halflings (really halflings just grew larger, but I disregard that and can make them both a foot shorter than their PH sizes, hah! :P ). I think their racial bonuses are more gnomish this time 'round, which to me is full of knowledge and jovial or spirited. Art's nice. Will we see any pointed hats somewhere? :D
Will we see any pointed hats somewhere? :D
Dear God, I hope not. :P
Have to admit, I miss the speak with animals ability. Sure it's ridiculous, but it made for some fun moments in the game where it somehow came in useful. And it always reminded me of Kronk.
"Uh, squeaker-squeakums, squeakah-squeaker. Okay guys, he says the killer went that way, and used a really big axe. Oh, and mage? He says you look creepy, and doesn't want you to come any closer."
I could care less about hobbits to be honest. But the 2e gnomes had innate magic resistance which they've now lost. They've lost the identity of the gnome illusionist with the loss of the illusionist though they still have illusion like powers. They've lost the entire concept of the tinkerer completely. They have lost the benifits associated with being a race that dwells underground. They were never charismatic, the bonus to charisma makes no sense, should be dexterity. They should not be fey anymore than dwarves, 2e gnomes were cousins to the dwarves, 4e gnomes are to eladrin what halflings are to humans. I can keep going but my point boils down to this, between the 2e and 4e gnomes you have next to no fluff in common, what little there is revolves around illusions, they have no racial features in common, and they don't look at all alike, so 2e and 4e gnomes are about as different as dwarves and elves, that is my issue.
I wasn't saying *you* cared about hobbits...I was using them to make a point. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.
As for magic resistance, everyone lost that. This isn't anything new...only the drow retained it as long as 3E, and by now it would be totally unbalanced. The only way I can even think of to implement it would be a defensive bonus against powers with the Arcane keyword, which would be a largish pain in the neck. So IMO this is a case of "blame the system, not the designers of the gnome in particular."
The illusionist...I'll be surprised if that isn't back by PHB3. Meantime, they favor the Wizard who has the only real illusions at this point.
Tinkerer...I'll hand you that, but since Eberron gnomes are absolutely still tinkerers (not to mention FR gnomes that are refugees from Lantan) I can't get worked up. I think of it as a statement that the "default setting" is pretty much tech-free. And when did non-sverfnebli ever dwell underground?
Bonus to Charisma is the same as the dwarf bonus to Wisdom. It effectively discourages gnomes who aren't taking a Wisdom-based class from bumping Wis instead of Cha for Will defense. Dexterity...when have gnomes ever been associated with Dex? Only whisper gnomes from 3.5 have that association IMO...the "little dwarves" of 2E did not.
The gnomes being fey is probably the biggest change, but it's neither out of tune with folklore nor with the conception of gnomes as tricksters. The fluff on the gnome I've read barely resembles the eladrin...they play completely different roles in the Feywild.
Tinkerer...I'll hand you that, but since Eberron gnomes are absolutely still tinkerers (not to mention FR gnomes that are refugees from Lantan) I can't get worked up. I think of it as a statement that the "default setting" is pretty much tech-free. And when did non-sverfnebli ever dwell underground?
Bonus to Charisma is the same as the dwarf bonus to Wisdom. It effectively discourages gnomes who aren't taking a Wisdom-based class from bumping Wis instead of Cha for Will defense. Dexterity...when have gnomes ever been associated with Dex? Only whisper gnomes from 3.5 have that association IMO...the "little dwarves" of 2E did not.
The gnomes being fey is probably the biggest change, but it's neither out of tune with folklore nor with the conception of gnomes as tricksters. The fluff on the gnome I've read barely resembles the eladrin...they play completely different roles in the Feywild.
Agree, and I add that Eberron makes them tinkerers while keeping the very magical side of them, which is something very good. Gnomes still make very good artificers and they may be cool ones too.
Plus, the gnome of other editions may not have been charismatic mechanically, but the underlying concept of it and the various sources, all depict gnomes with at least very strong personalities and other traits which I could very well link to the Cha stat, I'm perfectly fine with that. Charisma is not only, by any means, social ability. A true gnomy gnome couldn't care less about diplomacy and wouldn't take the skill, making him much less diplomatic (and thus truly socially-adept) as a mid-low cha character with training in the skill.
And speaking of fey, gnomes and eladrins are so far from each other to actually nearly represent the two opposite poles of fey: the wise, dedicated, gracious, and beautiful VS the tricky, ugly (they get old-looking damn fast, and I must say I like the thing), selfish, and witty. Extremely high glass towers VS extremely low hidden cubbyholes. Eladrins incarnations of the awe-inspiring sides of nature, gnomes of the hidden magic of its little things. Their eyes like orbs of dazzling colors the former, dark but sparkling black pools the others, very representative IMO.
Now that I cited the "hidden magic of the little things of nature" I think that If I had to really transform and re-modernize gnomes, with a nod towards Guillermo del Toro, whom I'm proud to call a compatriot, I would have tried to tie them to insects or insect-like fey instead of burrowing animals.
Tinkerer...I'll hand you that, but since Eberron gnomes are absolutely still tinkerers (not to mention FR gnomes that are refugees from Lantan) I can't get worked up.
Actually, Eberron Gnomes don't really "tinker" and definitely don't use cogs and springs either. While Zilargo Gnomes are renowned for their shipwrights, elemental binding, and gem cutting, they aren't renowned for innovating anything. The Eberron Gnome's shtick is the collection, consumption, and distribution of knowledge and information.
Humans, particularly those of house Cannith, are the tinkerers and creators of the new and fantastic.
Actually, Eberron Gnomes don't really "tinker" and definitely don't use cogs and springs either. While Zilargo Gnomes are renowned for their shipwrights, elemental binding, and gem cutting, they aren't renowned for innovating anything. The Eberron Gnome's shtick is the collection, consumption, and distribution of knowledge and information.
Humans, particularly those of house Cannith, are the tinkerers and creators of the new and fantastic.
Ops you're right. I was referring to elemental binding as "tinkering with arcane flavor", but I guess as you say it's a much more traditional thing, in fantasy terms, than house Cannith's works,
Races of the Wild was pretty good, at least the Halfling chapter, but I really can't think of anything else off the top of my head.
Luckily, yes, fluff is mutable and disposable, especially in D&D.
Dark Emo Gnomes? No, not in any setting I would want to run.
Dark Emo Gnomes? No, not in any setting I would want to run.
Eh? Eh? What setting do these dark emo gnomes exist in?
4e Gnome Characteristics: Affable, clever, crafty, curious, funny, guarded, inconspicuous, inventive, secretive, sly, tricky.
Step 1: Write up a 4th Edition Gnome.
Step 2: Use whatever portrait you want. Change fluff if necessary.
Step 3 (optional): Give him goggles, use a repeating crossbow, take the Alchemist feat, use classes that fit the flavor (Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Rogue, Artificer), anything else you can think of. Mix and match as necessary.
Your character doesn't have to be anything like what is presented in the PHB, regardless of iteration. Hell, you can probably make a really good David the Gnome who rides a dire fox.
I want a pet gnome.
the question is why you want a pet gnome..
the question is why you want a pet gnome..
Flat head and no teeth…?