Wednesday, January 10, 2018
Although this is not addressed in the core rules per se, just curious on thoughts of allowing for GNOMES as a racial...
Although this is not addressed in the core rules per se, just curious on thoughts of allowing for GNOMES as a racial possibility (outside of the DWARF, ELF + HALFLING options) for PCs?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Holmes Basic, like OD&D upon which it is based, allows for the playing of ANY race. Do whatcha wanna...
ReplyDeletetheotherside.timsbrannan.com - Gnomes for Basic D&D
ReplyDeleteAllow anyone to play any species. It's only natural. :-)
ReplyDeletequestingblog.com - questingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ConfessionsOfADungeonMaster1980.pdf
Dreenoi are cool. ;-)
ReplyDeletetin-soldier.com - Dreenoi
Samurai Centaur-gnomes are allowable.
ReplyDeleteAs others have pointed out, Holmes makes clear that anything can be adapted to the game. As for allowing gnomes, specifically, I think the Gygaxian gnome (as the race appears in early AD&D publications, including the PHB) is a fine fit for Holmes, probably built along the same lines as the halfling (low fighting ability, good thieving)...but then why do you need gnomes?
ReplyDeleteAD&D gnomes really only shine when you combine their ability to multi-class as an illusionist. As neither multi-classing, nor illusionists, are a part of Holmes, you're left with adapting AD&D systems (in which case you might as well be playing AD&D), OR creating your own shtick. In which case, you can adapt the gnome in any way you feel best fits your campaign setting. I wrote up a more "woodsy" gnome class for my book The Complete B/X Adventurer, and it wouldn't be too tough to adapt it to Holmes...though I cite it more as an example of "what's possible" than "what's best."
; )
Jonathan Becker I thought the one in the blog post above did a fine job for Holmes. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI went through a phase where I wanted to play gnomes -- because I'd never seen anyone play a gnome and I figured I could invent what they were like and what their culture was like and all that junk.
ReplyDeleteSo, setting their "ROLE" aside completely, someone might want to play them for the sake of the rôle it opened up to explore during play... sneaky party member or not.
Sorry if I offend anyone, but I am with Mr. Becker; why Gnomes? And while I am feeling cranky, why Illusionists?
ReplyDelete...but, but... the centaur gnomes...!
ReplyDeleteThink of the centaur gnomes...!
Chris Holmes I said he can, I didn’t say he should... never liked either, myself. Heck, I don’t even like elves (with apologies to Zereth)
ReplyDeleteIn Greyhawk (1975), Gygax mentions Gnomes as a type of dwarf, along with the hill and mountain types. So an easy option is to just let a player pick whether their dwarf is a gnome, hill dwarf or mountain dwarf. In Holmes there isn't really any significant mechanical difference between dwarves and gnomes.
ReplyDeleteAnother option is what is used in the French translation, where hobbits are replaced by gnomes
ReplyDeleteThen we have the Monster Manual, which reports rumors of magic-using gnomes for the first time. In this option, we simply let gnomes be MU/F, similar to elves but with dwarven racial abilities
ReplyDeleteOr we could differentiate by multi-class, and make Gnomes = MU/Thief analogous to Elves being MU/Fighter. You could take this further and have Hobbit as F/Th.
ReplyDelete