Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition is on the way...

[Joseph Bulock]

My point isn't that they have to be goofy and annoying, more that they seem very much predisposed to it. This comes as much from generic fantasy concepts of gnomes and halfings then things specific to D&D, but that's part of my point. Moving towards more races that are more specific to D&D will give them a more defined setting, and maybe even help them pull away from some of the more "washed out" fantasy races.

[Magister Lajciak]

I agree with Joseph Bulock on the gnome issue.

 

This is my categorization of the common types of gnomes:

 

1) Goofy Gnome: Two sub-categories: Chaotic/Chaos Gnome and Prankster/Trickster Gnome

1.a) Chaotic/Chaos Gnome: The character is eccentric in a chaotic, unpredictable and illogical manner

1.b) Prankster/Trickster Gnome: The character has a deliberately annoying demeanor

Problem: I really dislike goofy characters of this type in the games I DM

 

2) Tinker Gnome: The gnome is an inventor, technologist and scientist

Problem: I don't like steampunk and this type character evokes/makes sense primarily in the steampunk genre

 

3) Motley Gnome: The gnome consists of a mix of features of humans, elves, dwarves...

Problem: Does not have a real niche in my worlds populated by humans, elves, dwarves...

 

Of course, these archetypes often mix and match together in various ways, which does not really help the case of gnomes in my games.

 

Do my problems with gnomes mean they should be removed from the 4E PHB? Not necessarily if enough other people like them, but their removal is certainly not something I will lose sleep over (except while typing this post!).

[Deraldin]

Not to interrupt this fascinating discussion about gnomes (personally, I can't stand them) but...

 

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080201a

 

Death and Dying

or

[Jorian Drake]

It's just that gnomes and halflings really have no purpose, no reason to exist

tell that to their gods

 

btw: you could say the same about humans, elves, orcs, or any other race then aswell

Edited February 6, 2008 by Jorian Drake

[Sand]

I like the Death and dying rules of Arcana Evolved mixed with the Massive Damage Threshold system from d20 Modern.

[Spider]

btw: you could say the same about humans, elves, orcs, or any other race then aswell

 

I really don't think so. Most other races bring something that makes them stand out compared to the others. Halflings and gnomes just seem to be small versions of other races (humans and dwarves respectively). They just don't accomplish anything, other than being small.

[Jorian Drake]

btw: you could say the same about humans, elves, orcs, or any other race then aswell

 

I really don't think so. Most other races bring something that makes them stand out compared to the others. Halflings and gnomes just seem to be small versions of other races (humans and dwarves respectively). They just don't accomplish anything, other than being small.

while elves are nature preservers and magicians, the dwarfs smiths and warriors, the gnomes are gemcutters and loregatherers, and the halflings are the agrivcultural race (note this is different from the elves 'role' because they cut woods to create new fields) and the race that is mostly always optimistic, and that helps to have a community stay on a normal lever of entertainment with having hope and to assure that that world's everydays don't get so grey and dull as ours (for the majority anyway)

 

halflings are the quick and agile ones, sadly dnd doesn't represent this that great, from books and stories its clear that halflings are more nimble than even elves, but since both elves and halflings gain the same agility bonus in dnd, and since elves get the secret door detection and are considered to be the 'good looking' race they usually outclass the halflings. I say the race is great, but that the races in dnd are unbalanced and some subjugate others

 

gnomes are the curious ones, they are also mastercraftsman as their cousins the dwarfs, but they have better abilities with the arcane, what you can't tell about the dwarfs. gnomes produce a great part of the magical items you can buy in shops, because they always refine their abilities and try new things out, if you find in a shop some strange item or something that has a new, unknown or unexpected ability then there is a huge chance the creator was a gnome, they are the best jewelers, this is important mostly because the magic style and the wizards that use gems, they are also great alchemists because they smell the minor differences in alchemical liquids better than any other player reace.

 

 

again i have to tell the problem lies with the way dnd handles its races and the subjugation of some of them, also i have to agree with JB that the races now are very much predisposed, but not just by the book creators, sadly many people even as they are rpg-ers do not have enough imagination to create NPC/PC-s above the standard CASTES of the races and thus people suddenly don't expect more from that race anymore.

 

 

spider, you mentioned Mazzy, she is a good example of a well created character, if you think about it you will realize not many GM-s (or sadly even some bookwriters these days) take the time to fully evolve a character and make it a true personality that people could hate or like.

 

I suggest you to look at Claudio Pozas's art of some characters, you will see some well known 'types' of characters while many are more unique and interesting, its just some drawings, but if visual can be so different you can think about how good it could be to create a real background and characteristic for some of them.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Jorian Drake

[newc0253]

I think WOTC are yanking gnomes from the PHB because they want to put an end to all this gnome-on-gnome violence.

 

also gnome porn.

[Dark_Raven]

Thank the Goddess for used book stores that still stock AD&D rules and settings.

[Tigranes]

I always disliked Mazzy because she so flawlessly adopted the Paladin unto herself. She was basically a human Paladin, with an extra bit of angst because of her unaccepted gnomeness, which could well have been instead "They said I'm too short to be a Paladin!". And I realised that this was because apart from her character sheet, there is nothing that signifies her as a gnome, or Patrick either. There is nothing eccentric, unique or coloured in anything she does or any of her circumstances that depict her as a gnome; in that case, how easy it must be to just 'be' a Paladin - she's basically a short human!

 

This of course isn't the case with all gnomes, no - that was more of a tangential rant I suppose. But it is difficult to break a stereotype once it is so set in stone, and maybe WOTC feel it is better to abandon them and introduce new races later on, or make the existing races even more unique. I hope.

[Pop]

Have you even played BG2? Mazzy was a halfling.

 

Geez.

[Tigranes]

Uh... yeah. Switch gnome with halfling on all of those. :blush10:

 

Don't know what happened there, I've played that game at least fifty times.

 

But then, probably helps my point, eh?

[Pop]

Mazzy wasn't atypical of a halfling the way she would be an atypical gnome. They're generally big-hearted and brave. All she lacked was a propensity for mischief.

[Magister Lajciak]

...a propensity for mischief.

 

A propensity for mischief is one of my major dislikes of gnomes.

[Magister Lajciak]

I think WOTC are yanking gnomes from the PHB because they want to put an end to all this gnome-on-gnome violence.

 

also gnome porn.

 

You Sir are a danger to mental health on these boards!

[Niten_Ryu]

I wasn't too intesrested about 4th edition just few months ago but more I read about it, the more I begin to like it. My focus haven't been on PnP since the mid 90's so I look new setting more from world/universe or rule theory perspective then actual PnP. First I wasn't happy of rebuilding the cosmology but fact is that 2nd edition "great wheel" is long gone and won't come back. Maybe that concept (that I still think is great) should have been killed complitely when WotC moved to 3rd edition. 2nd edition FR creations like "Wall of the Faithless" made sense as those who were judged to it became petioners to the planes based by their alignments (and thus outside of FR cosmos). In 3rd edition as seen in NWN2 expansion, "Wall of Faithless" is just cruel torture device, that players couldn't even tear down because some legacy issues from 2nd edition. Well, good thing that 4th edition will clean up 3rd editions mess. Blood Wars did end, elemental planes totally changed into something else and law/chaos axis is complitely removed from the system.

 

WHY WE CHANGED THE GODS

 

[newc0253]

I always found it weird that 3e used the Greyhawk pantheon without the Greyhawk setting.

 

 

As with many folk who grew up with 1e, i've always preferred the low-fi Greyhawk setting to anything that came after (although i did like Planescape). But the deities were hardly central to the setting, so WOTC's decision seemed like a kid who ignores the shiny present and plays instead with the dull wrapping paper.

 

It also sounds kinda funny that WOTC wants to get away from a pantheon that's 'realistic in a sociological sense' and focus on 'a good set of deities that cover most players needs'. I never thought of the Greyhawk pantheon as in any way 'realistic in a sociological sense' but i look forward to a 4e pantheon that includes 'Slorg, the god of strength potions', 'Flarn, the goddess of mass heal scrolls', and 'Vlex, the god of +3 defensive bonus'.

Edited February 7, 2008 by newc0253

[Pop]

...a propensity for mischief.

 

A propensity for mischief is one of my major dislikes of gnomes.

I was referring to halflings, actually.

[Magister Lajciak]

...a propensity for mischief.

 

A propensity for mischief is one of my major dislikes of gnomes.

I was referring to halflings, actually.

 

No matter, although to a lesser degree than gnomes, nevertheless, I dislike halflings too.

[Gromnir]

I always found it weird that 3e used the Greyhawk pantheon without the Greyhawk setting.

 

the default setting for 3e IS/WAS greyhawk.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[newc0253]

the default setting for 3e IS/WAS greyhawk.

 

except that WOTC haven't released any new material for it, unless you count those rehashed 'Return to <name of famous AD&D module>' modules and that stuff in the Dragon. It's a 'living campaign', aka a setting that WOTC has relinquished entirely to the fanbase as a way not to support it otherwise.

[Gromnir]

is manifestly untrue.

 

1) any and all o' the splat books is usable in greyhawk... and many has greyhawk specific content

 

example: the horrible books like complete divine has greyhawk specific material, including expanded greyhawk domain and deity lists as well as (groan) prcs that is applicable to those gods. epic book gots greyhawk characters and greyhawk gazeeter is more detailed than 1st edition analogue. even got some greyhawk novelizations. over same span o' years, 3e and 3.5 has offered as much (if not more) greyhawk material than any similar span o' time during 1e or 2e incarnations.

 

2) is more greyhawk adventures than newc suggests

 

heck, one o' those new mega modules is the "expedition to the ruins of greyhawk" thingie. that one module alone is almost equal to any old series o' modules

 

don't compare to the fr or eberon settings. fr weakness is that everything and everybody is mapped out, detailed and given a new prc... and eberon were 'sposed to be the future. greyhawk has gotten much new material (those Return To modules typically adds 2x as much material as were available in the originals) and is not as if old 1e had that much greyhawk specific. most modules were non-specific and the core 1e hard covers not have greyhawk specific for most part.

 

greyhawk gets continued support... just not seem that way compared to fr and eby, and that is a Good thing. leave up to individual dms to flesh out and bring to life rather than being force fed wotc pap.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[newc0253]

example: the horrible books like complete divine has greyhawk specific material, including expanded greyhawk domain and deity lists as well as (groan) prcs that is applicable to those gods. epic book gots greyhawk characters and greyhawk gazeeter is more detailed than 1st edition analogue. even got some greyhawk novelizations. over same span o' years, 3e and 3.5 has offered as much (if not more) greyhawk material than any similar span o' time during 1e or 2e incarnations.

 

i bow to your superior knowledge of the 3e product line.

[steelfiredragon]

dont like eberron either, smells like a 50 lb bag of bat guano, or a 50lb bag of manure

 

but Gromnir is right about complete divine. complete champion also has greyhawk material in it, in fact so do complete mage and arcane.

[Sand]

I didn't think I would like Eberron either but after playing it for several months now I think its a decent setting. Its not the typical DnD medieval setting. Its like how 19th century Earth is like but with magic fueling the advancement of society instead of traditional technologies, but not quite Steampunk. A DnD game using NWN2's engine would be more interesting in Eberron than in Forgotten Realms that much is certain.

Edited February 9, 2008 by Sand