# Photos of the new Gnome (PHB2)



## Baumi (Feb 19, 2009)

I found threat on RPG.net that has the upcomming Gnome in it! 

the 4th ed gnome - RPGnet Forums

Direct Link to the Pictures:
Flickr Photo Download: S1051698
Flickr Photo Download: S1051699


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 19, 2009)

Uh... they look just like the halflings...

who pretty much look just like humans...


----------



## avin (Feb 19, 2009)

We'll have to wait until home to see them. Where did they get the pictures from?


----------



## Engilbrand (Feb 19, 2009)

Actually, they look like tiny Elves with goofier ears. I stopped for a second when I saw that they speak Elven. I still hate small races, though.
Then again, it would be funny to play one as a badass and tear through things.


----------



## op1983 (Feb 19, 2009)

Well I suppose it's better than the other takes on Gnomes where they end up looking like the little people from Wizard of Oz.


----------



## Baumi (Feb 19, 2009)

I don't know where it is from, I just got it from rpg.net. Isn't there a big Convention now?

I think they look fine, a bit too human-like but elf's, eladrin and halflings have the same "problem".


----------



## Klaus (Feb 19, 2009)

Baumi said:


> I don't know where it is from, I just got it from rpg.net. Isn't there a big Convention now?
> 
> I think they look fine, a bit too human-like but elf's, eladrin and halflings have the same "problem".



So they're now elven halflings, eh?

Note that the picture doesn't match the description:

"Gnome skin tones range from ruddy tan to woody brown to rocky gray. Their hair can be virtually any color, from stark white to blonde and various shades of brown to autumnal orange and green. Their eyes are glittering black orbs."


----------



## Dragonhelm (Feb 19, 2009)

avin said:


> We'll have to wait until home to see them. Where did they get the pictures from?




Those pics have been out for a few weeks now.  I forget the convention, but a guy got some pics from the PHB2 sample pages at the convention.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 19, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Those pics have been out for a few weeks now.  I forget the convention, but a guy got some pics from the PHB2 sample pages at the convention.



IIRC, it was at New York Comic Con.


----------



## Hawkeye (Feb 19, 2009)

That male gnome is about to get backstabbed?  Do gnome females kill the males during their mating?  It could be why they are so rare.

Hawkeye


----------



## Tetsubo (Feb 19, 2009)

My first thought was, "They're elves?"


----------



## The Green Adam (Feb 19, 2009)

op1983 said:


> Well I suppose it's better than the other takes on Gnomes where they end up looking like the little people from Wizard of Oz.




And that is bad because...?

Sorry my friends but Oz, like Middle Earth, Wonderland, Lanhkmar, Narnia and Melnibone', has been around alot longer then D&D. IMO this is just another attempt at getting away from the source material and trying to make everything look tough, sexy and badass. 

Can't some stuff be funny, heart warming, mysterious or creepy. Its like the 90's when every comic book featured a Wolverine clone because Wolvie was so popular. We ended up this dozens of guys named Ripclaw, Warblade, Gutkill or whatever. What if I'm not a fan of that kind of character? Now I have nothing to read 'cause everyone's the same.

That's how 4E's visuals come off to me. Instead of some fun characters, some menacing characters and some slick characters, it all looks kind of the same.

I also find it odd that it doesn't match the written description.

I'm playing a 3.x Gnome this weekend in my friend's new homebrew campaign. He looks like this...









He originally wanted to be a 4E character but then he wiped off the blood, started putting on weight, decided he didn't look good in leather...

AD


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Feb 19, 2009)

The big nose is missing.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Feb 19, 2009)

I am *absolutely* a fan. They look kinda ruthless. Also, with strong fey orientations, I feel like they have more character. And they're more unique in the previous edition. They're not silly anymore, and they're not just halflings with magic anymore. I feel like they're their own unique thing, you know?

There's just something kinda... cool looking about them! Love the new direction.


----------



## Byronic (Feb 19, 2009)

Good LORD I hate the racial descriptions from the PHBs. They sounded a lot better in the preview.

I'm also still not a fan of the art in the PHB, I think I'll keep the image from the MM for Gnomes which is slightly better. Not to mention far better dressed.


----------



## davethegame (Feb 19, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Those pics have been out for a few weeks now.  I forget the convention, but a guy got some pics from the PHB2 sample pages at the convention.




That some guy is me, and the convention was New York Comic Con 

(gotta remember to start labeling my con coverage pics better)


----------



## Klaus (Feb 19, 2009)

Apart from the black orbs as eyes, I think I got really close to the actual description of the gnomes when I did the cover to the Advanced Player's Guide:

Claudio Pozas - Dragons in Dungeons


----------



## Spatula (Feb 19, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Note that the picture doesn't match the description:
> 
> "Gnome skin tones range from ruddy tan to woody brown to rocky gray. Their hair can be virtually any color, from stark white to blonde and various shades of brown to autumnal orange and green. Their eyes are glittering black orbs."



Seems to be a recurring problem with WotC art.  4e elves are also supposed to have darker skin tones by the text, but you'd never know it from the pictures in the books.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Feb 19, 2009)

The Green Adam said:


>



Not that's _my_ kinda gnome.


----------



## ferratus (Feb 19, 2009)

The Green Adam said:


> He originally wanted to be a 4E character but then he wiped off the blood, started putting on weight, decided he didn't look good in leather...




I don't know, your character looks pretty much exactly like the gnome in the picture, except he grew a beard and wears a conical cap.  I certainly don't think the picture you gave couldn't be a 4e gnome.   He doesn't have a monkey wrench in his hand for instance.

I always liked the forest gnome style of gnome in 2e, so I'm glad they were picked to be the main type of gnome in 4e.  

As for the other gnome races, I imagine that Spriggans will be the servants of the Fomorians, and the deep gnomes will live in the caverns of the feydark.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 19, 2009)

Tbh up until Eberron I never liked gnomes. The 4E ones look right at home in Zilargo, so I'm fine with them.


----------



## Wizard Biscuits (Feb 19, 2009)

I've noticed a lot of lack of love for the smaller races in D&D, in fact, I've been guilty of it myself. But I think a large part of it seems to stem from the identity crisis they all have. 
It really surprises me that  it seems Wizards never really sat down with their art team and went "Ok, so this is what we're going to make our Gnomes/Halflings/Kobolds/Hamsters look like". A little cohesion would go a long way towards making them more memorable and, at times, less ridiculous. We've all had that moment trying to assure a newcomer that Gnomes do not, in fact, look like a miniature Santa with a pointy hat (well, not in my game, but then, each to their own). 
That being said, I do like the new look of the Gnome, and while of late I've been sticking with using a description uncannily like everyone's favourite interviewed Gnome - "I'm a monster!" - the two share approving similarities. Let's just hope the artists at Wizards can stick to a little continuation this time.

Disclaimer: I'm not slagging the artists, nor their artistic license. It's just, if you look at a few other fantasy/sci-fi companies, you can tell what is what through the unity their artists share. I realise D&D does work a bit differently, each person has their own view on what something should look like within their game. that's fine, but it'd help if there was some cohesion, especially in regards to the 'implied setting', since it makes it easier for newcomers to keep up with what's what and lends wach race a greater depth of identity and character.


----------



## Xyxox (Feb 19, 2009)

I think that I shall call them,...

MINI-MELF!


----------



## Mercule (Feb 19, 2009)

Xyxox said:


> MINI-MELF!



I almost cried when I first read this as "mini-milf".

Actually, I really hate the new look for gnomes and halflings.  Actually, I think I'm okay with halflings as generic little folk who look like humans.  Not my particular preference, but I see the lure.

Gnomes, though, are just little elves.  They're something else.  Something benevolent, but alien enough to feel vaguely menacing.  That's where their "dark humor" comes from: alien-ness.  I suppose I can see them conceptually as the "little elves" who make shoes, but I hope they are so much more than that, too.  Gnomes could be the most interesting of the small races -- every bit as interesting as dwarves and elves, and more so than tieflings or dragonborn.  WotC just has to decide what to do with them and not make them just "little {x}es".


----------



## Elodan (Feb 19, 2009)

Elflings?

Paizo's gnomes have a similar story (fey ancestry) and I think it works.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 19, 2009)

Backstory wise and mechanically wise I am fine with the Gnome. Visually I am somewhat okay, I like this one more but would emphasize/showcase certain things.

I would definitely emphasize the black eyes and have them reflect what is around them and such. Their posture would always seem to be slightly on the edge of, "fight or flight" always looking around, twitching, etc. Think like you see small mammals when their cautious. It would be common for the hair to be quite messy possibly laced with twigs, etc. Their nails are tinted black, and such.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 19, 2009)

Gnomes need more. Halfling, elven and dwarven culture are something most of us are familiar with. We know how they govern themselves, their family structures, their architecture. Gnomes are pranksters who like illusions and gems. Eh? So what? This is simply not adequate, gnomes have never been fleshed out half as well as the other races have. Heck I feel I know dragonborn better than them.


----------



## Alikar (Feb 19, 2009)

Cool, I like the new look. I'm tempted to use them as a replacement to Halflings since they seem to fit better in my own opinion.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Feb 19, 2009)

Looks and feels like a true Zil. sold!


----------



## Oni (Feb 19, 2009)

I miss Nebin.  I think the image is lacking a little in the eccentricity I associate with gnomes.  

But hey, if you let them age a couple of hundred years they'll start to resemble old school gnomes a bit more, break out the conical red hats.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Feb 19, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Gnomes need more. Halfling, elven and dwarven culture are something most of us are familiar with. We know how they govern themselves, their family structures, their architecture. Gnomes are pranksters who like illusions and gems. Eh? So what? This is simply not adequate, gnomes have never been fleshed out half as well as the other races have. Heck I feel I know dragonborn better than them.




I find the new description of gnomes to be _quite_ sufficient. *And* I find them unique. Sure, people can call them mini-elves, but they still have _many_ distinct characteristics. They're not just "pranksters who like illusions and gems". If anything, that's what they were in 3rd Edition. Now, they have the few background working heavily in their favor, a post-slavery subtlety that lends to their suspicious nature.

Among other reasons I like the new gnome, every thing seems to be not only unique, but _justified_. In 3rd, I felt like gnomes were just halfings with ghost sound. They're so much more likable, playing, and interesting than they used to be. They have character, and that's what I want in my game.

And also, I guess I was never really "in-on" that running joke that the absurdity of gnomes. I always hear people going "LOL GNOMES", but I never see what's so funny. Aside from gnomes in World of Warcraft, I don't see anything humorous about them other than _maybe_ the name and it's associations. Especially with 4th Edition gnomes. I mean, besides the fact that they enjoy pranks, I don't even see anything _humorous _about them. Tortured background, paranoid nature...

...lol?

Anyway, I'm happy with the new direction. Rock on, gnomes.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 20, 2009)

"With 4e, we're going to do something other editions haven't - we're going to give the gnomes a concrete and unique place in the setting, so they aren't just a weird variant of dwarf!"

"Yeah, we changed our minds.  They're mini-elves now."


----------



## JackSmithIV (Feb 20, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> "Yeah, we changed our minds.  They're mini-elves now."




But they're *nothing* like elves. They are from the feywild, and have pointy ears (which is everything in the feywild). Other than that, their mannerisms, background, culture, character, likes, dislikes, tenancies, and mechanics are completely different.

What is it I'm not seeing here?


----------



## The Green Adam (Feb 20, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Seems to be a recurring problem with WotC art. 4e elves are also supposed to have darker skin tones by the text, but you'd never know it from the pictures in the books.




I think the fault isn't with the art there, its with the description. They need to describe the races in ways that depict what they are more specifically and what they look like more vaguely. Elves, Gnomes, Halflings, etc. should be able to have any skin tone humans have and then some. The GM/campaign should decide.

*SilvercatMoonpaw2 -* Thank you so much. I try to keep my D&D character a bit more toward traditional medieval folklore in appearence.

AD


----------



## Byronic (Feb 20, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> "With 4e, we're going to do something other editions haven't - we're going to give the gnomes a concrete and unique place in the setting, so they aren't just a weird variant of dwarf!"
> 
> "Yeah, we changed our minds.  They're mini-elves now."




I've noticed this from WotC before, they have wonderful inspirational ideas but then it all goes away by the time it gets published.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 20, 2009)

The Green Adam said:


> I think the fault isn't with the art there, its with the description. They need to describe the races in ways that depict what they are more specifically and what they look like more vaguely. Elves, Gnomes, Halflings, etc. should be able to have any skin tone humans have and then some. The GM/campaign should decide.
> 
> *SilvercatMoonpaw2 -* Thank you so much. I try to keep my D&D character a bit more toward traditional medieval folklore in appearence.
> 
> AD



They have the skin range of humans covered in the core races, with the "and then some" covered by dragonborn, tieflings and, now, gnomes. But the PHB describes eladrin as tending towards lighter skin and elves toward darker skin, and yet no artist is depicting them as anything but light beige. I think the fault here is on the Art Directors that don't mention to the artists "hey, these gnomes? make their skin tones ruddier, like wood brown or rock gray".


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 20, 2009)

JackSmithIV said:


> But they're *nothing* like elves. They are from the feywild, and have pointy ears (which is everything in the feywild). Other than that, their mannerisms, background, culture, character, likes, dislikes, tenancies, and mechanics are completely different.
> 
> What is it I'm not seeing here?




Sorry, mini-_Eladrin_*


*Which are elves.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Feb 20, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Sorry, mini-_Eladrin_*
> 
> 
> *Which are elves.




...I thought that was assumed.

My _exact words_ still stand. Except I suppose now I'll clarify that I'm talking about the eladrin-gnome parallel which, in my opinion, has little merit.


----------



## The Green Adam (Feb 20, 2009)

Klaus said:


> They have the skin range of humans covered in the core races, with the "and then some" covered by dragonborn, tieflings and, now, gnomes. But the PHB describes eladrin as tending towards lighter skin and elves toward darker skin, and yet no artist is depicting them as anything but light beige. I think the fault here is on the Art Directors that don't mention to the artists "hey, these gnomes? make their skin tones ruddier, like wood brown or rock gray".




I see where you're coming from. I totally agree. Again if the descriptions were more generallized or the art direction tighter we would see a big difference in the resulting designs.

On a related side note, does anyone else wish there were two or three depictions of each race, monster, etc. by different artists scattered throughout the books instead of these 'iconic' images. The art in recent editions is so unified I think it hurts a product that is supposed adaptable by the customer. I'd rather see different peoples interpertations as it inspires me to envision my own.

AD


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 20, 2009)

The Green Adam said:


> On a related side note, does anyone else wish there were two or three depictions of each race, monster, etc. by different artists scattered throughout the books instead of these 'iconic' images. The art in recent editions is so unified I think it hurts a product that is supposed adaptable by the customer. I'd rather see different peoples interpertations as it inspires me to envision my own.



While I am fine with the core descriptions and the art I would like this. I think it be neat to see what artist would do when their allowed to just go wild with their imagination.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 20, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Uh... they look just like the halflings...
> 
> who pretty much look just like humans...




Yeah, but just ask any Ogre and they'll tell you that _*"it's what's on the inside that counts"*_. 

(Mmmmmm, roast Gnome. Compared to humans, it's what Veal is to Beef. Quite good with fava beans and a nice chianti.)


Anyways, Gnomes in my imagination will always be like the Nelwyn of _Willow_.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 20, 2009)

I honestly don't see the mini-elves thing.

Gnomes come across as secretive, deceptive, stealthy things that hide in shadows and win with guile and trickery over brute force.

Eladrin come across as arrogant high mages that glitter with silver in the moonlight in near-perfect beauty.

High elves are all about being seen. Gnomes are all about not being seen.

It takes more than pointy ears to make an elf. 

The art is fine. I think the art direction probably went something like: "Make them badass and cool, not goofy and flamboyant." The picture radiates some badass quotient. Not always what I want to see in a gnome, but understandable and suitable nonetheless.


----------



## chaotix42 (Feb 20, 2009)

The PHB2 art looks just like the MM art, except the MM's gnome looks like he has paper hair. I'm especially fond of the black eyes. Shady fey vibe 10/10!

Also, gnomes are going to make sweet bards. Crazy, I know.


----------



## op1983 (Feb 20, 2009)

> Sorry my friends but Oz, like Middle Earth, Wonderland, Lanhkmar, Narnia and Melnibone', has been around alot longer then D&D. ...
> 
> ... Now I have nothing to read 'cause everyone's the same.




This was my whole point. The things you've mentioned have been around longer than D&D and they've been done and done. So, why not make something new and still be fun. No reason you can't have both.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Feb 20, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I honestly don't see the mini-elves thing.




Thank you, finally! I thought I was either crazy or invisible.


----------



## hexgrid (Feb 20, 2009)

The Green Adam said:


> I'm playing a 3.x Gnome this weekend in my friend's new homebrew campaign. He looks like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How quickly we forget! That's not nearly enough straps, spikes, or weapons to be a 3e gnome.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Feb 20, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> High elves are all about being seen. Gnomes are all about not being seen.



That's the best summation of the 4e gnome that I've seen.

I've never been a gnome fan, but... who knows, maybe I'll give them a try this time around!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 20, 2009)

Klaus said:


> So they're now elven halflings, eh?



If you play in Ptolus (or its environs), they've been this way since 2E!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 20, 2009)

Wizard Biscuits said:


> I've noticed a lot of lack of love for the smaller races in D&D, in fact, I've been guilty of it myself. But I think a large part of it seems to stem from the identity crisis they all have.
> It really surprises me that  it seems Wizards never really sat down with their art team and went "Ok, so this is what we're going to make our Gnomes/Halflings/Kobolds/Hamsters look like". A



Forget the looks: WotC seems to have a hard time understanding the different roles of the two races in question. Halflings strongly come off as "we're supposed to have a race called this in the PHB," and they have zero connection, besides their height, to the origin of the species. Other than someone devoted to playing a short rogue-friendly race, there's no real hook for them in the way that every other PHB1 race has. (And that's notably not true for the other "classic" PHB1 races: Lovers of high elven mages get their itch scratched quite nicely with the eladrin, dwarves work the way they've always worked and elves cover the Legolas crowd's needs very well.)

I still think merging gnomes and halflings -- and going with the name most people around the world know -- would have been the better solution to begin with. Give one race all the fluff from both races, and it would have been better off, even with the substandard shorty race fluff WotC has come up with.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 20, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Gnomes need more. Halfling, elven and dwarven culture are something most of us are familiar with.



The halfling culture you're familiar with from the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings is absolutely not the culture of the PHB1 halfling.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Feb 20, 2009)

I think the direction of the new gnomes is great.  I find them fully distinct from elves, eladrin, or whatever.  I think any similarities between the fey races is just  that - they are all fey, and this is what the fey tend to look like.

I have a soft spot for gnomes that I think dates back to the movie _Legend_, Screwball and Brown Tom being my archetypal gnomes.  But I've only played one gnome in my entire gaming career - a beguiler in 3e.  I have had other ideas for gnomes (rogues and illusionists, naturally   ), but the 4e gnome wants me to try out other ideas.  Also, by playing up their secretive, mischievous nature, gnomes as effective and nefarious antagonists become more viable (it's easier to play up the conspiratorial "gnomes of Zurich" angle   ).  

In FR, gnomes were called the "Forgotten Folk," and I've seen hardly any gnome PCs in play.  Now, with their racial background and abilities, it's obvious as to why this is the case - it's because they've been keeping a low profile all these years and hiding under everyone's noses!   I don't expect a sudden influx of gnomes, but I think with their more focused theme and mechanical bonuses they will be a choice that's a bit more palatable.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Feb 20, 2009)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Forget the looks: WotC seems to have a hard time understanding the different roles of the two races in question. Halflings strongly come off as "we're supposed to have a race called this in the PHB," and they have zero connection, besides their height, to the origin of the species.



I agree with you basically, although I would have use the name "kender" for 4e halflings and just redefined what kender means.

But otherwise, I feel halflings and gnomes are pretty distinct.  Halflings are outgoing, happy-go-lucky gypsy types.  Gnomes are cunning, manipulative, and sly types.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 20, 2009)

Jonathan Moyer said:


> I agree with you basically, although I would have use the name "kender" for 4e halflings and just redefined what kender means.



That would work too, and cause less cognitive dissonance. Heck, kender are a lot more familiar to today's fantasy fans than "eladrin." Many new D&D players would immediately grok what the race was supposed to be about.


----------



## Hellzon (Feb 20, 2009)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Heck, kender are a lot more familiar to today's fantasy fans than "eladrin." Many new D&D players would immediately grok what the race was supposed to be about.




Stealing the other PC:s stuff all the time?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 20, 2009)

Hellzon said:


> Stealing the other PC:s stuff all the time?



See how easy that was?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2009)

> I still think merging gnomes and halflings -- and going with the name most people around the world know -- would have been the better solution to begin with. Give one race all the fluff from both races, and it would have been better off, even with the substandard shorty race fluff WotC has come up with.




I think they got gnomes pretty good this time around. They have a good "hook."

Halflings are a bit more troublesome from the 4e perspective because there isn't a big reason to have them there. The 4e halfling doesn't satisfy purists (they ain't hobbits!), and it doesn't satisfy people looking for the new stuff either (they lack a strong archetype in the way that dwarves and elves and gnomes have strong archetypes). 

They can have a stronger achetype, but I think, as I mentioned in the halfling thread, that being torn in two separate directions for 3e and 4e makes them weaker. I'd just as soon have them be "hobbits," and if hobbits don't make good PC's, keep the rules for them in the PHB2 or whatever.

Certainly WoW doesn't need halflings.


----------



## Krypter (Feb 21, 2009)

Whatever these mini-elves may be, they certainly don't look like gnomes to me. I think I'll stick with my santa clauses with red conical hats, thanks.


----------



## Plissken (Feb 21, 2009)

Gnomes would make great Vulcans.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 21, 2009)

Tbh I get how halflings are. Maybe because of Races and Classes.


----------



## The Green Adam (Feb 21, 2009)

op1983 said:


> This was my whole point. The things you've mentioned have been around longer than D&D and they've been done and done. So, why not make something new and still be fun. No reason you can't have both.




Ah but you don't have both. I see no examples of short, well fed species among the lean perfect short people. The halfling, the gnome, all lacking any imperfection or sense of whimsy. What I am advocating is that we see different versions or images of the gnome. I would perhaps be happier with the new look of Gnomes if we got to see the old look of Gnomes also.

Even if you personally don't think the Gnomes look like mini-Elves or just like the Halflings, hasn't the fact that enough people have made this comparsion tell you that perhaps, just perhaps, there is some validity to the statements?

Its art and art is subjective. To me its simply not interesting enough of a design. Sometimes new redesigns are fun, sometimes the original source material is so classic its silly to mess with it. To each there own of course but I'll stick with my small, chubby, bearded woodland folk.

AD


----------



## The Green Adam (Feb 21, 2009)

hexgrid said:


> How quickly we forget! That's not nearly enough straps, spikes, or weapons to be a 3e gnome.




True, my little fellow has a much more 1E/Ars Magica look I think 

AD


----------



## Spatula (Feb 21, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think they got gnomes pretty good this time around. They have a good "hook."



Yes, possibly for the first time.  I barely even knew the race existed in the 1e/2e days, outside of DL's tinkers - gnomes didn't seem to serve any significant purpose and I rarely saw them in adventures or in setting materials.  And they never showed up in the artwork (insert invisibility joke here).  In 25+ years of playing D&D I think I've only seen 1 gnome PC (a 3e bard).  For the first time though, I would consider playing these gnomes.  It's not just that they have a good "hook" - the abilities of the race back up and reinforce the hook.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Halflings are a bit more troublesome from the 4e perspective because there isn't a big reason to have them there. The 4e halfling doesn't satisfy purists (they ain't hobbits!), and it doesn't satisfy people looking for the new stuff either (they lack a strong archetype in the way that dwarves and elves and gnomes have strong archetypes).



Plus the archtype keeps getting messed with.  In 3e they were little gypsies, complete with wagons.  A possibly bigoted take for a race that's most often associated with thieving, but at least it's something that people know and can identify with.  In 4e, they're dreadlocked riverfolk, which just isn't a very interesting hook to hang a character concept on (which I think also comes out in the very lackluster halfling racial feats).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2009)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Yes, possibly for the first time.




Probably, yes. While individual settings often had pretty good gnome ideas (hobbits or tinkers or spies or whatever), the game as a whole didn't know what to do with them until 4e.



> In 4e, they're dreadlocked riverfolk, which just isn't a very interesting hook to hang a character concept on (which I think also comes out in the very lackluster halfling racial feats).




For most character creation choices, it's all about the archetype. The halflings presented in the core 4e rules don't fit an archetype very well.

Which is why I gave them the "thug" archetype IMC (which their boldness, athletics, and stealth actually reinforce, to a large degree).


----------



## Sammael (Feb 21, 2009)

Incidentally, doesn't this count as a breach of WotC copyright? As in, text from the books posted verbatim? After all, if someone scanned those same pages from PH2 and posted the scans, that would be illegal, right?


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 21, 2009)

Ick.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Feb 21, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Uh... they look just like the halflings...




The hair Joe, look at the hair. No human in his right mind would have hair like that!  I like a lot of Steve Argyle's work, but not that piece. Maybe its just the picture, but yuck. Then again, I've always hated gnomes so maybe its my racial prejudice.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 21, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Probably, yes. While individual settings often had pretty good gnome ideas (hobbits or tinkers or spies or whatever), the game as a whole didn't know what to do with them until 4e.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So your halflings are rogues with the Ruthless Ruffian or Acrobat Rogue builds, eh?


----------



## Woas (Feb 21, 2009)

Ridiculous. Okay, I can live with wanting to make them 'a monster' (I grit my teeth referencing that...) and thus not privy to the playable race list even though dragonboobs and demons apparently can be playable. 

But if you're going to make them monsters, then make them freaking monsters. These half-ass pictures of spikey haired 10 year olds cos-playing Link (poorly at that) don't cut it.


----------



## JackSmithIV (Feb 21, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Tbh I get how halflings are. Maybe because of Races and Classes.




This is very true. But I don't understand why people claim that halfling have no flavor in the new edition, or that they're just short humans. Sure, they're not hobbits, but they _absolutely_ have their own flavor. Just look in the PHB. People might argue that they "don't have their own culture", but that kind of _is_ their culture. They're adaptable, warm, friendly, curious, rich with oral tradition. And they kind of have the whole gypsy-traveler thing going on. They're very close with other civilizations, and get along well with most. I don't think they need their own plane, a lost kingdom, or the Shire to be unique.



Woas said:


> Ridiculous. Okay, I can live with wanting to make them 'a monster' (I grit my teeth referencing that...) and thus not privy to the playable race list even though dragonboobs and demons apparently can be playable.
> 
> But if you're going to make them monsters, then make them freaking monsters. These half-ass pictures of spikey haired 10 year olds cos-playing Link (poorly at that) don't cut it.




What are you talking about?

What you're saying is that if it's in the monster manual first, it should absolutely not make it as a playable race?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2009)

Klaus said:
			
		

> So your halflings are rogues with the Ruthless Ruffian or Acrobat Rogue builds, eh?




If that helps them kill stuff for the Raven Queen and deck themselves out in enough gold and jewels to equal their body weight, sure.


----------



## HelloChristian (Feb 21, 2009)

Gnome=big nose, talks to gophers.

End of story.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 22, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> High elves are all about being seen. Gnomes are all about not being seen.




Despite which, gnomes get a Charisma bonus and eladrin don't...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 22, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Despite which, gnomes get a Charisma bonus and eladrin don't...




We're just that lovable.


----------



## Oni (Feb 22, 2009)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> We're just that lovable.




And more to the point, who likes those snooty elves anyway.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 22, 2009)

> Despite which, gnomes get a Charisma bonus and eladrin don't...




Eladrin aren't the only PH thing that don't have the fluff to support their rules.


----------



## Shroomy (Feb 22, 2009)

Gnomes having a Charisma bonus makes sense if they're supposed to be tricksters (and being flashy or beautiful is not the definition of Charisma).  One example would be that Bluff is a Charisma skill.


----------



## Richards (Feb 22, 2009)

HelloChristian said:


> Gnome=big nose, talks to gophers.
> 
> End of story.



I'm with HelloChristian.  If there isn't a honkin' great schnozzola on the front of its face, then it's obviously not a gnome.

Johnathan


----------



## SSquirrel (Feb 23, 2009)

Am I weird that I saw this thread and imagined the Gnome from the Gnome vs Tiefling cartoon being in the book?


----------



## Nivenus (Feb 23, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Despite which, gnomes get a Charisma bonus and eladrin don't...




Charisma doesn't mean being noticeable when you don't want to be. It's about having control over how others percieve you, for better or worse.

Don't forget, after all, that Disguise, in 3e, as well as Streetwise in 4e, are both Charisma-based skills. There's more than one way to go undetected.

Someone with a very low Charisma tends to stick out when they would least like to and be ignored when they're rather be noticed. It's sort of an odd concept, but makes some degree of sense.


----------



## Hairfoot (Feb 23, 2009)

Halflings are teenage humans, and gnomes are halflings.  Welcome to the brave new world of 4E.

Plus ca change...


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 23, 2009)

Sammael said:


> Incidentally, doesn't this count as a breach of WotC copyright? As in, text from the books posted verbatim? After all, if someone scanned those same pages from PH2 and posted the scans, that would be illegal, right?




From the blog Critical-Hits.com which brought the pictures to us


> Finally, they showed off some printouts of pages from the PHB 2 and graciously allowed me to take pictures of them before they scooped them up:



So my guess (but IANAL) is that no, it is not a breach since they autorized it.

Cheers


----------



## Nivenus (Feb 23, 2009)

If it were lower resolution, I would say definitely yes, since that's covered under fair use. As it is, it falls under a quasi-legal area but, as the above poster says, its generally accepted as fair use if the author(s) give permission.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Feb 23, 2009)

*This* is a gnome:







(Source: http://images.elfwood.com/art/r/o/ross/gnome.jpg)


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Feb 23, 2009)

JackSmithIV said:


> People might argue that they "don't have their own culture", but that kind of _is_ their culture. They're adaptable, warm, friendly, curious, rich with oral tradition. And they kind of have the whole gypsy-traveler thing going on. They're very close with other civilizations, and get along well with most.



Indeed. In my opinion, the unique thing about halflings is that they aren't territorial at all. They don't build kingdoms or empires, or sequester themselves from other races. 

Family and racial bonds are tight and important, but they see absolutely no conflict between coming to the aid of your second cousins once removed, when the family is threatened, and living among humans on the waterfront.


----------



## Richards (Feb 24, 2009)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> *This* is a gnome:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where's his beard?

Johnathan


----------



## The Green Adam (Feb 24, 2009)

Richards said:


> Where's his beard?
> 
> Johnathan




Agreed. Aside from that, I'd use that image for a PC.

AD


----------



## Scribble (Feb 24, 2009)

Man...

That's a well done picture. I like it... It's kind of creepy in a way, but also goofy.

That said, I'm not a violent person. Really I'm not... But man... Sometimes I just see a picture of a goofy lookin guy like that and I just think how funny it would be to watch that thing get punted muppets style. I don't know what it is... Maybe it's the belly, or the goofy expression it's giving? I just want to kick it.


WHACK! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA THUMP.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 24, 2009)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> *This* is a gnome:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Drop the twee pipe and give him a rusty knife and you have a decent goblin. 

Since I like playing goblins (and wouldn't be caught dead playing any old edition D&D gnome), I'd cheerfully play this guy tomorrow.


----------



## davethegame (Feb 24, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> From the blog Critical-Hits.com which brought the pictures to us
> So my guess (but IANAL) is that no, it is not a breach since they autorized it.
> 
> Cheers




We had express permission to shoot the photos- in fact, they laid them back out at my request.


----------



## Leontodon (Feb 24, 2009)

As a guy who likes D and D to stay rather close to the literarical and mytholgical sources that preceded it, I do not like what I see. To me D and D Races should resemble the character that inspired them with room for your own imagination. Why does every Race nowadays tend to look like a bodybuilder corporation?


----------



## Nivenus (Feb 24, 2009)

Is it me or am I the only one that things the new 4e gnome looks pretty darn similar to the ol' 3e one (can't speak for earlier editions - ne'er played 'em).

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG131.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/re_Gimble72.jpg

I mean... sure, there are differences. But neither of them look bald, wrinkly, with a big, bushy beard. I haven't seen gnomes like that in D&D since... well... as far as I can remember. Must be showing my age.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Feb 24, 2009)

Richards said:


> Where's his beard?



He's a depilation fetishist.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 25, 2009)

The only reason folks are calling them "Mini-elves" is because they have pointy ears.

Don't most art depictions of fey have pointy ears? Pixies, brownies, sprites, sylphs, etc? Looking at the 3e MM, nymphs have pointy ears, as do satyr, and the sprites.

Honestly, the 4e gnomes look more shaggy and mussy. Like someone put pointy ears on Wolverine. Muttin-chops and such. I also can't recall ever seeing an elf with short hair; the gnomes have "pixie" haircuts.

_Everything in the Feywild speaks elven_. Satyrs in the MM speak elven. As do Dryads, as do Fomorians.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 25, 2009)

Rechan said:


> _Everything in the Feywild speaks elven_. Satyrs in the MM speak elven. As do Dryads, as do Fomorians.




Yeah I get the impression Elven is the "Common" of the feywild.


----------



## ferratus (Feb 25, 2009)

I think it is right and proper to but a beard on a gnome.   Not a long hairy tangled or braided monster like a dwarven beard, but a soft short beard.  It would help distinguish them from elves because aside from height they both inhabit the magical elf creature archetype. 

In fact, gnomes should in general look a little soft looking, rather than the skinny little guy trying to be tough.  They are based around being master illusionists with secrets and secret wealth anyway, so a magically hidden warren with gold and gems in the tunnels and a pastoral existence works quite well.  

In other words, they can steal the flavour text of the hobbits without the problem of hobbits being sedentry trademark infringements.  Their trickster personalities and sense of humour gives them plenty of reason to explore the world beyond their warrens.   It would combine the best features of forest gnomes, kender, and halflings into one small race.

Then we can chuck the halflings who have become watered down boring mini-humans and we can make room for a more interesting demihuman race.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 26, 2009)

ferratus said:


> Then we can chuck the halflings who have become watered down boring mini-humans and we can make room for a more interesting demihuman race.



Now this I could support.

Easily the most boring race in the PHB.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 26, 2009)

Rechan said:


> The only reason folks are calling them "Mini-elves" is because they have pointy ears.
> 
> Don't most art depictions of fey have pointy ears? Pixies, brownies, sprites, sylphs, etc? Looking at the 3e MM, nymphs have pointy ears, as do satyr, and the sprites.
> 
> ...



You didn't read the pages, I'd reckon.



> Apart from their size, they resemble elves or eladrins, with pointed ears and chiseled facial features such as high cheekbones and sharp jaws.




The only differing features are the crazy hair, the black eyes and the skin tone. But the artist used the default Causcasian skin tone, instead of the brown or gray of the description.


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Feb 26, 2009)

Gnomes look like [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAphcvZaS8I"]this[/ame].

Whizzbang, was it you who made the comparison of gnomes to the rabbits in Watership Down? It's an absolutely inspired way of looking at gnomes, and what I've been using ever since.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 26, 2009)

Klaus said:


> The only differing features are the crazy hair, the black eyes and the skin tone. But the artist used the default Causcasian skin tone, instead of the brown or gray of the description.



So, let me ask:

How do pixies, sylphs, brownies, sprites, and other such faeries differ from elves aside from size and (obviously) wings?


----------



## ferratus (Feb 26, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So, let me ask:
> 
> How do pixies, sylphs, brownies, sprites, and other such faeries differ from elves aside from size and (obviously) wings?




They differ by not being PC races.   If there were brownies as a race in the PHB2 we'd be asking how they differ from gnomes.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 26, 2009)

ferratus said:


> They differ by not being PC races.   If there were brownies as a race in the PHB2 we'd be asking how they differ from gnomes.



... Then fine.

How do they differ _if they were PC races_.

Come on. Don't be obtuse here.

My point is that most faeries in literature look alike. Leprechauns are just short men with green coats. Pixies are really tiny, and have wings. Etc, etc. They _all look like people_, with the only difference being height (and the few rare cases like satyrs). Having pointy ears is one of the few things that screams "Faerie", thus it's going to be universally applied. 

There was no visible difference between Halflings and Gnomes in the 3e PHB, aside from a slight variation of height. They looked exactly like short humans. Why people are complaining about this _now_ like it's new, I don't know.

Oh wait, yeah I do. Because no matter what they did with gnomes, you can't make everyone happy. _Someone_ would be upset. They're not tinker-enough (or TOO tinkery), or foresty enough (or TOO foresty), or too much emphasis on the pointy hats (or not ENOUGH), or too much pranksters, or whatever. No matter what, there's going to be at least _some_ who say "THAT'S NOT A GNOME". Given that a gnome is a hodgepodge of about eighteen different notions.


----------



## Webby140 (Feb 26, 2009)

Too damn thin... too damn thin!! They look like a simplified Fey Halfling... not the usual Gnome look we're used to.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 27, 2009)

Hella_Tellah said:


> Whizzbang, was it you who made the comparison of gnomes to the rabbits in Watership Down? It's an absolutely inspired way of looking at gnomes, and what I've been using ever since.



It was, and thank you.


----------



## ferratus (Feb 27, 2009)

Rechan said:


> ... Then fine.
> 
> How do they differ _if they were PC races_.




See, but that's just it.  Yeah, a lot of fairy creatures are similar.  But if they are monsters then we only have to worry about one or two traits to distinguish them.   Pixies are swarming creatures that put you to sleep, nixies are found in the water, sylphs summon air elementals, nymphs blind you.  Notice that brownies aren't in the MM1, because there is nothing a brownie can do as a monster that the gnome cannot do.  In fact, Korred who are the brownie's poor drunken redneck cousins got converted before they did.

If there were a PC sylph race proposed, one would be looking for flavour text that you couldn't get by playing an eladrin, and that includes look and feel.  You wouldn't want "elves that summon air elementals".



> There was no visible difference between Halflings and Gnomes in the 3e PHB, aside from a slight variation of height. They looked exactly like short humans. Why people are complaining about this _now_ like it's new, I don't know.




Yeah, but people are complaining about halflings because they are too similar to humans.  People didn't like 3e gnomes because they were too similar to halflings.  So when people complained around the art direction for the 4e gnome, they complained about the fact they looked like elves.  It could have been avoided if they had a beard and pointy ears.  I don't think the first picture posted with the beard and the pointy hat is incompatible with the flavour description of the 4e gnome, and I have a feeling most gnomes will have beards and look a little like garden gnomes in play.   The 2e forest gnomes did after all.  It makes them more hobbitish too, and I have to say I miss hobbits just a little.



> Oh wait, yeah I do. Because no matter what they did with gnomes, you can't make everyone happy.




I can agree with that.  I like the forest gnomes as my favourite version of gnomes, even though I'm a dragonlance fan.  I know other people like the other 17 concepts of gnomes.  Some like them as tinkers, some like them as whisper gnome assassins, some would like them to be druids, some would like them to wrinkled little trolls.  

For all the talk about races being too similar, you can also have the opposite.  I'm kicking out dragonborn and tieflings because they are too monstrous the vibe of the civilized races of my campaign world.   Dragons are for slaying not for playing.  It's a prejudice I'm comfortable with.


----------



## ferratus (Feb 27, 2009)

Webby140 said:


> Too damn thin... too damn thin!! They look like a simplified Fey Halfling... not the usual Gnome look we're used to.




Yeah, the thinness and the grizzledness is not what I like either.  They need to be a little plumper, a little rosier, and a little more mischievous.  That's what they said in the "The Gnome, the Bad and the Ugly" article right?  Gnomes are cute, gnomes are funny, and sometimes that's okay.

But I like the 2e forest gnome, rather than the 3e gnome.


----------



## Gallo22 (Feb 27, 2009)

They look exactly like elves!  More watering down of D&D in 4th edition.  I'm so glad I did not bite!


----------



## Barastrondo (Feb 27, 2009)

Leontodon said:


> As a guy who likes D and D to stay rather close to the literarical and mytholgical sources that preceded it, I do not like what I see. To me D and D Races should resemble the character that inspired them with room for your own imagination. Why does every Race nowadays tend to look like a bodybuilder corporation?




Me, I would have liked to see Paracelsus-style gnomes for a change. Nuts to this whole "mortal race" thing: give me a gnome that hangs with the the undine, salamander and sylph!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 27, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> Me, I would have liked to see Paracelsus-style gnomes for a change. Nuts to this whole "mortal race" thing: give me a gnome that hangs with the the undine, salamander and sylph!



This would have been a great way to have started off in the OD&D era, that's for sure. (It's sort of weird that undines are such an afterthought in all D&D eras, too.)


----------



## Klaus (Feb 27, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So, let me ask:
> 
> How do pixies, sylphs, brownies, sprites, and other such faeries differ from elves aside from size and (obviously) wings?



You play around with body proportions, eye scale, ear length, skin tone, etc.

For instance, look at the various races of fey in Van Richten's Guide to the Shadow Fey:






The Shee are the most "elven", and high elven at that. Very human proportions, but graceful and poised. Also, very pale.





The Alven are diminutive, with large eyes, green skin, orange hair and pettite, "fairy" bodies.





The powrie, or redcaps, have a distorted face, large predatory eyes, a sharp toothy grin and a thin but muscular body.





The portune have all-black eyes, sage-like faces, slim bodies and a large-ish head.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 27, 2009)

I think that people miss the point in a lot of ways...

I don't think the pictures are indicating that ALL gnomes are chisled and thin... Just adventurer types tend to be. For the same reason the human picture isn't a fatass shmuck.

These are people/things that wander off the beaten path into places of danger. When's the last time you saw an out of shape activly serving military guy?


----------



## ferratus (Feb 28, 2009)

Yeah, but we're talking about fantasy archetypes.   Gnomes are a little soft and inoffensive looking not because that's realistic for an adventuring warrior, but because they're gnomes.


----------



## lutecius (Feb 28, 2009)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Forget the looks: WotC seems to have a hard time understanding the different roles of the two races in question. Halflings strongly come off as "we're supposed to have a race called this in the PHB," and they have zero connection, besides their height, to the origin of the species.
> I still think merging gnomes and halflings -- and going with the name most people around the world know -- would have been the better solution to begin with. Give one race all the fluff from both races, and it would have been better off, even with the substandard shorty race fluff WotC has come up with.





ferratus said:


> In other words, they can steal the flavour text of the hobbits without the problem of hobbits being sedentry trademark infringements.  Their trickster personalities and sense of humour gives them plenty of reason to explore the world beyond their warrens.   It would combine the best features of forest gnomes, kender, and halflings into one small race.
> 
> Then we can chuck the halflings who have become watered down boring mini-humans and we can make room for a more interesting demihuman race.



Agreed. If you can't find interesting and significantly different themes for both races, merge them and be done with it (the same goes for devils and demons imo.) I would have thought the idea would cause outrage among gnome lovers (the three of them), but even Whizbang seems ok with it.

Halfling could just be a name for young, beardless adventurers (in most pictures, old halflings look like gnomes and young gnomes like halflings anyway.)



Dausuul said:


> Despite which, gnomes get a Charisma bonus and eladrin don't...





Kamikaze Midget said:


> Eladrin aren't the only PH thing that don't have the fluff to support their rules.



Indeed, but I think Charisma is particularly problematic because it covers too many contradictory things. It doesn't make sense that hated races like tiefling and drow get a bonus to Diplomacy, that halfling and gnome get a bonus to Intimidate or that goblins get a bonus to either skill.

Also, I've always thought elf/eladrin should be the intuitive, Cha based caster (bard or sorcerer) and gnome the learned, Int based wizard.



Rechan said:


> The only reason folks are calling them "Mini-elves" is because they have pointy ears.
> Don't most art depictions of fey have pointy ears? Pixies, brownies, sprites, sylphs, etc?.



But pixies, sprites, nymphs and dryads have all been explicitly described as elf-like in earlier editions, so it's fine to call them "tiny winged elves" or "tree-elf hotties".

If the new gnomes are thin, pointy-eared magical humans from the Feywild (aka eladrin/elves) and their only distinctive feature is being shorter, then they _are_ mini-elves (with funny hairstyles).



Klaus said:


> You play around with body proportions, eye scale, ear length, skin tone, etc.



Yes. These gnomes would have been more striking if either of them had the unusual skin tone, hair color or facial hair mentioned in the description.

But I think the real problem is that they (and halflings, since 3e) are built like tall humans. Except for the background, there is no indication that they're small. They should have proportionally larger heads and extremities.



Scribble said:


> I think that people miss the point in a lot of ways...
> 
> I don't think the pictures are indicating that ALL gnomes are chisled and thin... Just adventurer types tend to be. For the same reason the human picture isn't a fatass shmuck.
> 
> These are people/things that wander off the beaten path into places of danger. When's the last time you saw an out of shape activly serving military guy?



And yet, compared to human adventurers, eladrin are frail and dwarves are tubby. Fantasy races seem to have different physiologies.

But I think you (and wotc) miss the point. I don't play small races but I suspect those who do like gnomes and hobbits precisely because they're not your typical adventurer. They are imperfect, comical, endearing antiheroes or unexpected villains.

Those who want bare-midriffed babes or badass athletes tend to play other races. 
Gnomes will never be "cool", no matter how much leather you put on them (that doesn't mean they should all wear dresses like the one in MM1)


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Feb 28, 2009)

lutecius said:


> I would have thought the idea would cause outrage among gnome lovers (the three of them), but even Whizbang seems ok with it.




I'm a gnome lover, and I thoroughly register my nerdrage at this idea. 

The small races couldn't be more distinct in my mind. Gnomes are good-natured forest people with beards, conical hats, animal friends, and a penchant for illusions. Halflings live in shires, eat too much, have hairy feet, and are very courageous when they aren't too lazy to rise to the occasion. Brownies are hairy, evil fae, servants of Queen Mab of the Unseelie (Winter) Court, while pixies are beautiful, winged creatures with squeakie voices serving Queen Titania of the Seelie (Summer) Court. In _A Midsummer Night's Dream_, Puck is a brownie, while Queen Titania's retinue (Moth, Peasblossom, Cobweb and Mustardseed) are pixies. Redcaps murder travellers and die their hats with blood. Goblins steal your babies; sometimes they leave a fairy baby in its place, and that's a changeling.

Why D&D writers have decided to throw out all the wonderful strangeness of real-world myth and replace it with rubbish, I still don't understand.


----------



## ferratus (Feb 28, 2009)

Hella_Tellah said:


> The small races couldn't be more distinct in my mind. Gnomes are good-natured forest people with beards, conical hats, animal friends, and a penchant for illusions. Halflings live in shires, eat too much, have hairy feet, and are very courageous when they aren't too lazy to rise to the occasion.




The Tolkien estate has something to say about the last part.  That's the problem with the halflings as hobbits.   The gnomes though are well poised to take over the good-living, burrow dwelling hobbits without the trademark infringement.   Is there any reason gnomes can't have animal friends and cast illusions, yet live in warrens and eat too much?

That's the thing about the 4e gnomes.  Despite the concept art, 4e mechanics do support warren dwelling illusionists with conical hats and animal friends just fine.  In fact, 4e supports that archetype better than 3e because they can turn invisible when they get into trouble, and they ditched all the alchemy and tinker flavour baggage, and loosened the associations with bards.


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Feb 28, 2009)

ferratus said:


> The Tolkien estate has something to say about the last part.  That's the problem with the halflings as hobbits.   The gnomes though are well poised to take over the good-living, burrow dwelling hobbits without the trademark infringement.   Is there any reason gnomes can't have animal friends and cast illusions, yet live in warrens and eat too much?




Yeah, that's why I've never had high hopes for D&D halflings. I always think of them as Tolkein halflings, myself, but I understand why neither TSR nor WOTC could do that. But taking gnomes and making them hobbits ruins _two_ good fantasy creatures, rather than having one lame one. The effect on the game, for me, is that I can't just say, "Okay, $New_Player, the book says halflings are sneaky river people with oblong alien heads, but that's stupid, so they're hobbits." Handing out hobbit bits to gnomes means that I have to re-explain two different races, which is double bad. 

My little info packets for starting players are thick enough!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 28, 2009)

Hella Tellah said:
			
		

> Why D&D writers have decided to throw out all the wonderful strangeness of real-world myth and replace it with rubbish, I still don't understand.




Generous Theory: D&D has always co-opted myth for game purposes, so since dragons are a rainbow of fruit flavors, they're OK with fey being nothing like their origins.

Conspiracy Theory: You can't copyright real-world myth, and if you try to duplicate the mystery of it within the context of a game, and without the millennium of development those myths got, it's going to be rubbish, but rubbish that you can copyright on the off-chance that some segment likes your rubbish.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Mar 1, 2009)

Counter-Conspiracy theory: "We made some  up we though would be fun." Works with 90% of D&Ds "specialized" view on mythological creatures (like medusas as a race and not individuals etc.).


----------



## Scribble (Mar 1, 2009)

lutecius said:


> And yet, compared to human adventurers, eladrin are frail and dwarves are tubby. Fantasy races seem to have different physiologies.




Dwarves are built more like heavyweight boxers. Designed for strength over speed. They're short with compact thick muscles. They have a con bonus. Where are you seeing tubby?

Elves/Eladrin are built with long thin muscles which is true to a race that has a dex bonus. They're built like runners. 

Both races are commonly depicted in shape just in different ways. 



> But I think you (and wotc) miss the point. I don't play small races but I suspect those who do like gnomes and hobbits precisely because they're not your typical adventurer. They are imperfect, comical, endearing antiheroes or unexpected villains.
> 
> Those who want bare-midriffed babes or badass athletes tend to play other races.
> Gnomes will never be "cool", no matter how much leather you put on them (that doesn't mean they should all wear dresses like the one in MM1)




It's not about "bare mid-drifted babes or badass athletes."  It's about pictures that actually match the stats.

If you take the stats of the average D&D character, but then depict it with a dumpy overweight old man, you're not really doing an accurate representation.  The two adventurers depicted are a bard and a warlock. Chances are both of them are going to have pretty decent stats, and pretty decent cons to boot.

You can depict the average gnome any way you want, but an adventurer probably isn't going to match it. Just like your average adventuring human isn't going to look like the average human.  He's got to be in shape, otherwise he's not going to last that long. 

The average D&D adventurer spends his time unable to overeat, walking long distances, fighting with weapons, dodging monsters, dodging weapons, and otherwise just being active. He's going to be in shape.

If this were a picture of some commoner gnomes in gnome village I might agree with you. But they're not, they're adventurers.


----------



## Felon (Mar 2, 2009)

Rechan said:


> There was no visible difference between Halflings and Gnomes in the 3e PHB, aside from a slight variation of height. They looked exactly like short humans. Why people are complaining about this _now_ like it's new, I don't know.
> 
> Oh wait, yeah I do. Because no matter what they did with gnomes, you can't make everyone happy. _Someone_ would be upset. They're not tinker-enough (or TOO tinkery), or foresty enough (or TOO foresty), or too much emphasis on the pointy hats (or not ENOUGH), or too much pranksters, or whatever. No matter what, there's going to be at least _some_ who say "THAT'S NOT A GNOME". Given that a gnome is a hodgepodge of about eighteen different notions.



I gotta go with Rechan on this one. I guess I would have liked to have to seen them with the little beards--it only takes a little thing like that to make them distinct from halflings. But a more radical change in appearance would have evoked much more indignation.

Personally, I'm going to focus on the gnome having interesting racial features that make them look unique and fun to play. As someone still on the fence with 4e, I put that in the "win" column.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 2, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:
			
		

> Counter-Conspiracy theory: "We made some up *** we though would be fun." Works with 90% of D&Ds "specialized" view on mythological creatures (like medusas as a race and not individuals etc.).




...way to reword what I called the "generous theory," man. 



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm going to focus on the gnome having interesting racial features that make them look unique and fun to play. As someone still on the fence with 4e, I put that in the "win" column.




Indeediedoo. I don't need a necessarily dramatically distinct appearance...4e art has been narmworthy on more than one occasion, so I give it a pass. I like what the gnomes are psychologically and mechanically, and that is quite distinct (even if it's not what everyone wants them to be).


----------



## JackSmithIV (Mar 2, 2009)

Felon said:


> Personally, I'm going to focus on the gnome having interesting racial features that make them look unique and fun to play. As someone still on the fence with 4e, I put that in the "win" column.




QFT. People tend to forget what matters.

But I'm sure I'm wrong.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 2, 2009)

Felon said:


> Personally, I'm going to focus on the gnome having interesting racial features that make them look unique and fun to play. As someone still on the fence with 4e, I put that in the "win" column.



*Nods* In fact this is the case when DMing for all races. I quite literally go to my players, "just look at the mechanics". Once they choose the race they like the most then together we craft what the race actually is, what it looks like, acts, etc.

Sometimes it is fairly close to the original, other times it is way out there.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Mar 2, 2009)

Hella_Tellah said:


> Why D&D writers have decided to throw out all the wonderful strangeness of real-world myth and replace it with rubbish, I still don't understand.



Whose version of legend and folklore are they going to use?  It's not like fey lore was codified.  You can find 5-6 different descriptions and conflicting backgrounds with any random name you grab.  And then there's the fact they have to make it into playable game stats.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 2, 2009)

D.Shaffer said:


> Whose version of legend and folklore are they going to use?  It's not like fey lore was codified.  You can find 5-6 different descriptions and conflicting backgrounds with any random name you grab.  And then there's the fact they have to make it into playable game stats.



And competing with 30+ years of gaming tradition. 

Folklore elves have little to do with Tolkien elves. Etc.


----------



## Hella_Tellah (Mar 2, 2009)

D.Shaffer said:


> Whose version of legend and folklore are they going to use?  It's not like fey lore was codified.  You can find 5-6 different descriptions and conflicting backgrounds with any random name you grab.  And then there's the fact they have to make it into playable game stats.




Yeah, there are many variations, but at least use _some_ of the awesomeness of folklore. Barbegazi are maybe too silly for everyone's campaign, but German kobolds are a creepy sort of awesome (come to think of it, does D&D have even _one _household spirit?). Or let's just take water nymphs, for one example. What about a water elemental who needs to marry and bear a mortal's child in order to get her own soul? Or a different watery ghost, a young woman violently murdered who becomes a ghost and tricks men into drowning themselves? Or women who die in child birth, doomed for the rest of their lifespan to live as an omen of death?

I do this myself, in my games, so its not like my needs aren't being met here. It's just a shame that the creatures in the core monster books have almost no story hooks to them. At least, nothing to compare to the oddities of real-world myth. Personally, I'd rather get a Monster Manual that devotes two or three pages to each creature, rather than the sparse writeups we've seen historically. The way World of Darkness books write up monsters works best for me, really--twenty or so per book, but man, what a wealth of story potential!


----------



## lutecius (Mar 5, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Dwarves are built more like heavyweight boxers. Designed for strength over speed. They're short with compact thick muscles. They have a con bonus. Where are you seeing tubby?
> 
> Elves/Eladrin are built with long thin muscles which is true to a race that has a dex bonus. They're built like runners.
> 
> ...



Whether it's muscle or fat, dwarves are certainly not built like heavyweight boxers. Anyone with that waist-to-height ratio would be considered tubby. 

As for "pictures that actually match the stats"... ha ha, funny. First, I'd be happy if 4e's _fluff_ matched the stats. Then, 3-4 foot humanoids (with smaller skulls than children or real dwarfs of the same size) having strength and intelligence scores comparable to those of humans defies the laws of biology. Whether they look in shape is fairly trivial.

Also, elves and dwarves don't vary much in appearance, regardless of stats or activity. According to phb, even the strongest eladrin look athletic rather than musclebound. And should a Dex 18 dwarven rogue be as thin as the phb2 gnomes? Have you seen fat, sedentary elves? (RL elf-players don't count)

My point is that fantasy races have fantasy physiologies and what constitutes "in shape" differs from one race to another. Why should gnome be subject to human standards?

I don't believe the designers/artist wanted lean gnomes because it was more realistic for adventurers. Seeing this picture, I'm convinced they just wanted hotter / badasser gnomes.

Anyway, I don't think anyone was clamoring for butterball gnomes or halflings. After all, hobbits were more childlike than actually fat and in previous editions gnomes were often called skinny dwarves. It's a more matter of body proportions. These new gnomes are just too slender and elf-like. But this just is a fluff/art gripe. As others have said, if the crunch is good…


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 5, 2009)

Hella_Tellah said:
			
		

> I do this myself, in my games, so its not like my needs aren't being met here. It's just a shame that the creatures in the core monster books have almost no story hooks to them. At least, nothing to compare to the oddities of real-world myth. Personally, I'd rather get a Monster Manual that devotes two or three pages to each creature, rather than the sparse writeups we've seen historically. The way World of Darkness books write up monsters works best for me, really--twenty or so per book, but man, what a wealth of story potential!




Word up. Especially in 4e, I don't need that many more monsters per book. What I need is more ideas on how to use them, including background info.

WoD might be a little much for a game as combat-heavy as D&D, but I'd love to return to the 1 page per monster format from 2e (with more devoted to groups of enemies). 



			
				lutecius said:
			
		

> I don't believe the designers/artist wanted lean gnomes because it was more realistic for adventurers. Seeing this picture, I'm convinced they just wanted hotter / badasser gnomes.




Probably. We have evidence that there will be more attractive half-orcs. Aesthetics for adventurers seems to be very important in 4e, which is a little odd considering how cartoony a lot of the 4e illos are. 

It's like WotC doesn't see what's fun about playing a fat little trickster who also happens to slay dragons with those tricks, or an ugly, greasy berserker who also happens to go on adventures. 

I long for the day when I can play my half-orc version of Charles Bukowski, or my gnome version of Santa Claus in an adventuring party.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 6, 2009)

Gnomes:


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 6, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Gnomes:



And with that, I now hate gnomes in *every* edition of D&D.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 6, 2009)

My work here is done.


----------

