Thematically, I love gnomes and vastly prefer them to halflings but the racial stat mods keep me from playing a lot of them. The classes for which a STR penalty/CHA bonus are acceptable/beneficial aren't generally the classes I usually play.
Now that Desna's fighting style enables builds that base almost-everything off of CHA, I might play one next time I get to play though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a "go to" race? No.
I have played a few gnome characters before and found them useful. There's not a whole world of difference between any of the core book races. Differences yes, though all have their uses.
Gnomes are great in a good roleplay group, or in a no roleplay group, but not so good in an in between group with the Bleaching being enforced. Especially if the GM believes it is Kender-style or the Bleach.
I like them, but if I want to play a small race I usually go Ratfolk or Goblin due to their stats/abilities/flavor.
I played a gnome Usummoner for a one off and it was pretty fun though, so I may use them again sometime.
I loved my gnome summoner and his giant angry squirrel eidolon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1st edition Gnomes were a favorite of mine. I don't care for the Pathfinder version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1st edition Gnomes were a favorite of mine. I don't care for the Pathfinder version.
I have to say that yeah, I prefer the 1e fluff of gnomes to be this intensely curious, intellectual, and eccentric people to any other version of the fluff (incorrigible tricksters, art-based society, etc.) "Gnomes are impulsive and want to take things apart, see how they work, and put them back together better*" is how I would prefer to conceive of gnomes, but that's probably more of a +INT race than a +CHA race.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally don't care much for them. Their fae-related nature (in Pathfinder) steps a bit on the toes of the elves, who tend to be the nature race by default. As a small race with a charisma bonus, they are also a bit overshadowed by the much more popular halfling. They aren't horrible, but I tend to ignore them for most roles. I tend to prefer martial races, where halflings or ratlings work better. I have never really bothered making a gnome as far as I remember.
I guess they would have a much more solid niche if they had an intelligence bonus and the usual tinkerer/mad scientist theme.Granted, it would be cliche, but it would give them a much more solid "niche" so to speak.
I'm not much into Golarion's gnome fluff. While the fey background is fine, I think it's a bit uninspired; I don't feel like they are stepping on the toes of the elves (whose alien aspect I really like).
However, I do plan to play an Eberron gnome at some point (because they are scary).
1st edition Gnomes were a favorite of mine. I don't care for the Pathfinder version.I have to say that yeah, I prefer the 1e fluff of gnomes to be this intensely curious, intellectual, and eccentric people to any other version of the fluff (incorrigible tricksters, art-based society, etc.) "Gnomes are impulsive and want to take things apart, see how they work, and put them back together better*" is how I would prefer to conceive of gnomes, but that's probably more of a +INT race than a +CHA race.
That's not the original 1e fuff. The original 1e fluff is really boring which is probably why you remember that fluff instead of the original relatives of dwarfs.
Edit:I do have to say the newest bit of fluff being that Golarion gnomes were a partially a death cult kind of interesting.
I absolutely love gnomes for full Charisma casters who don't understand the science of magic so much (like I see elves doing) they just play with it.
I see them as the lovable fun foil to the sometimes uppity elves as the two more magical core races. Love em.
They make pretty great life oracles.
Gisher,
Your gnome description is Ebberon and Forgotten Realms.
1st edition Gnomes were a favorite of mine. I don't care for the Pathfinder version.I have to say that yeah, I prefer the 1e fluff of gnomes to be this intensely curious, intellectual, and eccentric people to any other version of the fluff (incorrigible tricksters, art-based society, etc.) "Gnomes are impulsive and want to take things apart, see how they work, and put them back together better*" is how I would prefer to conceive of gnomes, but that's probably more of a +INT race than a +CHA race.That's not the original 1e fuff. The original 1e fluff is really boring which is probably why you remember that fluff instead of the original relatives of dwarfs.
Edit:
I do have to say the newest bit of fluff being that Golarion gnomes were a partially a death cult kind of interesting.
Boring is in the eye of the beholder. I thought the 1st edition Dwarves and Halflings were the truly boring races.
Gisher,
Your gnome description is Ebberon and Forgotten Realms.
That was PossibleCabbage's description. I never played Ebberon or Forgotten Realms. I went from 1st edition to Pathfinder.
Boring is in the eye of the beholder. I thought the 1st edition Dwarves and Halflings were the truly boring races.1st edition Gnomes were a favorite of mine. I don't care for the Pathfinder version.I have to say that yeah, I prefer the 1e fluff of gnomes to be this intensely curious, intellectual, and eccentric people to any other version of the fluff (incorrigible tricksters, art-based society, etc.) "Gnomes are impulsive and want to take things apart, see how they work, and put them back together better*" is how I would prefer to conceive of gnomes, but that's probably more of a +INT race than a +CHA race.That's not the original 1e fuff. The original 1e fluff is really boring which is probably why you remember that fluff instead of the original relatives of dwarfs.
Edit:
I do have to say the newest bit of fluff being that Golarion gnomes were a partially a death cult kind of interesting.
How is it that the race that wasn't that significantly different from the dwarf more interesting than the dwarf?
|
I've seen a few gnomes in PFS. They have their strengths. I've seen paladin, rogue, ninja and sorcerer at least, of varied effectiveness.
In 3.5 I played with a nasty evil gnome cleric tank for a while, and I ran a gnome eldritch knight who rocked.
I quite like pathfinder's take on gnomes. I plan on doing a gnome bard/oracle knowledge specialist at some point.
1st edition Gnomes were a favorite of mine. I don't care for the Pathfinder version.I have to say that yeah, I prefer the 1e fluff of gnomes to be this intensely curious, intellectual, and eccentric people to any other version of the fluff (incorrigible tricksters, art-based society, etc.) "Gnomes are impulsive and want to take things apart, see how they work, and put them back together better*" is how I would prefer to conceive of gnomes, but that's probably more of a +INT race than a +CHA race.
I much preferred the pre-3.0 Gnome statline of +Int and -Wis. It was a lot more fun and thematic.
Pathfinderised, I'd probably make them +2 Con and Int, -2 Wis. It would give them a much more unique niche statwise than "Halflings, except with Con instead of Dex."
I really enjoyed my gnome wizard. He not only had this nice gnome magic at hand (useful even in addition to wizard cantrips), but also supported me going for the illusionist route (thanks to +1 DC) which encourages more creativity than a classic wizard.
RP wise he got a decent package already by race choice: Curious, bizarre, inventive. He nearly messed up the GM's railroad to capture us by summoning a mount and convincing it to rush through the enemy line. Too bad the campaign fell apart afterwards...
I have enjoyed gnomes over the years, and really like Paizo's interpretation of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gnomes are a good race for certain concepts, especially when counting the alternate racial traits.
In addition to the mentioned bards, oracles, sorcerers, and summoners, they perform well as alchemists (with Obsessive in Craft (Alchemy) and the Pyromaniac alternate racial trait, FCB for extra bombs), arcanists (as many exploits are Cha-based, FCB to increase arcane reservoir), cavaliers (FCB for faster mounts), mediums, ninjas, paladins, skalds, and psychics (some disciplines use Cha to calculate phrenic pool points, FCB for extra phrenic pool points). They also are decent barbarians (Con bonus, Master Tinker alternate racial trait to be proficient with any exotic weapon they craft themselves), bloodragers (Con and Cha bonus, FCB to increase bloodline powers), clerics (channel energy and support), druids (FCB for energy resistance), magi (FCB to add extra weapon ability options with arcane pool), shamans (FCB for extra hexes), and witches (FCB for extra hexes).
Gnomes also make an easy race choice for an off-the-wall concept, "because they're a gnome..."
I've never really enjoyed gnomes, so I don't play them. Custom settings I build just don't even have them because I have no desire to see them around or role-play as them as the DM, and games I run on Golarion just never feature them even though I don't necessarily excise them from the setting. An AP I'm running right now as gnomes searching for an old dwarven fort... so instead I made them dwarves, because that makes more sense. I mostly just remove them all but in name and don't take gnome characters.
...Of the core races, gnomes are the one I have the least interest in playing - I never have, and I don't expect that I ever will (pre-made NPCs when I'm running games don't count). They just don't match the kinds of characters I tend to make. Personal preference, I guess?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really wanna play a gninja one day
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no race like Gnome. There's no race like Gnome. There's no race like Gnome.
Us Gnomes rule.
Ho, you're talking about the psychedelic bunch of Golarion gnomes ?
Those are unworthy of their purported gnomishness.
...
I just like evil 1st edition gnomes. So s/r/ue me.
I won't even talk about the 4th edition D&D bumiliation of the gnomes during that edition's launchtime.
Oops, I just did [*evil grin*] !
Bumiliation = bummer + humiliation
Verily, I must confess that I quite like Pathfinder's take on the Gnomish race.
Maniaco-depressive little bummers...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my players has been running a gnome alchemist for years. He's currently the most tenured character in the campaign. He's very effective in play and the player has never complained about him, so yeah, I'd say they're cool.
From a GM standpoint, I like that Paizo found a way to make gnomes distinctive from dwarves and halflings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I won't even talk about the 4th edition D&D bumiliation of the gnomes during that edition's launchtime.
Oops, I just did [*evil grin*] !
I'm a monster. Rar!
I'm playing a gnome ranger. Gnome racial bonuses pair well with ranger class features. Made sure he had a positive Charisma modifier because a gnome ranger who can't speak with animals at 1st level is just sad. Have discovered the fun of charging around the battlefield riding a combat-trained pony. Just hit 4th level so now the shenanigans truly begin. Muhahahaha!
I once, briefly, ran an all gnome campaign, and an all gnome campaign setting. I wrote some Gnomish subtypes for that campaign so they wouldn't be so shoehorned into specific classes. It was good wacky fun. They were essential golarion gnomes, but not on golarion.
Gnomes are a lot of fun.
Cuup, out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like how Pathfinder has handled the flavor and culture of gnomes (and halflings) in Golarion. It works well.
I just have an extreme dislike of the Small sized character mechanics*, so tend to house rule them to be on the short-and-light end of Medium and typically clocking 80-120 lbs, and aren't dwarfed by my three-year-old.
- Con: smaller weapon damage dice (almost inconsequential)
- Con: reduced movement (but so do dwarves or medium characters in heavy armor
- Con:-2 Strength (but +2 to two other stats)
- Con: -1 penalty to CMB and CMD.
- Pro: Early access to flying mounts (1st level instead of 7th)
- Pro: Mounted combat characters can take their dog (or other beasty) into most dungeons, where a medium sized character often cannot.
- Pro: More efficient carrying capacity. Heaviest gear is 1/2 the weight, but your capacity is 3/4 that of a Medium sized creature
- Pro: +1 AC and attack rolls (comes up way more than CMB/CMD)
- Pro: +4 size bonus to Stealth checks. Be the ninja.
- Pro: Need carrying? Not a problem. You're 27-43 lbs, instead of 150-200. A party member can carry five of you for every one human.
In particular, the mounted combat rules are something I've seen abused way, way too often by players with small sized characters to particularly enjoy having them at my table.
Again. Love the background and flavor of gnomes in Pathfinder. Hate the mechanics.