Finding the Gnome

I am absurdly happy this morning (despite little annoyances) because, as of about 9:30am, I finally, finally have a decent write-up of the illusionist class.

Hmm. Actually, "write-up" is a phrase too far...I have the nuts-n-bolts figured out (including spell lists) and scribbled on a spreadsheet. Sometime in the next couple-few days I'll get the chance to write the class up (hope-hope). But the point is, I've got the mechanics nailed down, especially the aforementioned spell lists which was a major sticking point. Turns out that going back to OD&D was the (as with many things) the cureall for what ails me: building from the ground up is so much smoother (even if it's time-consuming) when you start your construction on the foundation stone.

But we'll address Ye Old Illusionist in another post...this one is about a (slightly) related subject: the gnome.

As they appear in OD&D

I haven't blogged about gnomes much at all over the years. They're just not...well, just not a subject that's come up. They're not a class in B/X (though I included one in The Complete B/X Adventurer) and even back in my AD&D years, I don't remember seeing all that many.

Scratch that, I don't remember seeing ANY.  As a DM, I probably wrote one up as an NPC (I did that at one time or another with most all of the various class/races), but I'm sure it never saw play at the table. And if I had to guess, we neglected the gnome mostly because A) the racial level limits prevented high level advancement, and B) there was a general lack of enthusiasm for illusionists in our circle (and the ability to multi-class as an illusionist is one of the gnome's strongest recommendations). Personally, I've played one or two in Advanced Labyrinth Lord games (generally, assassin/illusionists) but these were all one-off games, not long term campaign play.

So let's talk about the gnome now...prior to starting up an OD&D campaign, I was deconstructing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons with the thought of creating an AD&D campaign. As such (and since then) I have done a LOT of reading/research of the OD&D books, pre-'78 copies of The Dragon, and old records of The Strategic Review (the periodical/magazine that directly preceded The Dragon). For most of AD&D rules, I can find precursors in these older texts...as one would expect, given that AD&D was, by and large, a reorganizing of the complete OD&D material into a readily usable (and uniform) format.

The gnome, however, is not present.

At least not as a player character. The "gnome" has been around as long as CHAINMAIL, where it appears as part of the entry for dwarves:

DWARVES (and Gnomes): Because their natural habitat is deep under the ground, these stout folk operate equally well day or night. Although they are no threat to the larger creatures, Trolls, Ogres, and Giants find them hard to catch because of their small size, so county one-half normal kills when Dwarves and Gnomes fight with them, for either attacks upon the Dwarves and Gnomes or returns...Goblins and Kobolds are their natural (and hated) enemies, and Dwarves (Gnomes) will attack Goblins (Kobolds) before any other enemies in sight...However, Dwarves and Gnomes will not have to roll an "obedience die" (as do Knights) to follow orders...

They are listed on the same line of the "Fantasy Reference Table" and they have the exact same move, charge, special abilities, attack, and defend ratings. There is NO difference between the two, and they are both listed on the side of Law.

In Men & Magic (OD&D book 1), the section on dwarves makes no reference to gnomes, except with regard to languages in which the text states dwarves speak Gnome, Kobold, and Goblin (interesting it does not reference them speaking their own Dwarvish language...unlike the entry for Elves). The reference for the race in the alignment list shows them as Dwarves/Gnomes (rather than two separate entries); the only other "double species" so listed is Goblins/Kobolds.

In Monsters & Treasures (OD&D book 2) the entry for gnomes IS separate from the dwarves and says only the following:

GNOMES: Slightly smaller than Dwarves, and with longer beards, these creatures usually inhabit the hills and lowland burrows as opposed to the mountainous homes which Dwarves choose. They are more reclusive than their cousins, but in all other respects resemble Dwarves.

Their lines in the Monster Reference chart are nearly identical, mainly differing in treasure type and lair percentage.

The Greyhawk supplement is the first time OD&D offers a physical description of the dwarf character  type and here gnomes ARE referenced, stating:

Dwarves are about four feet tall, stocky of build, weigh 150 pounds, shoulders very broad, their skin a ruddy tan, brown or gray, and are of various types (hill, mountain, or burrowers) (such as gnomes).

Greyhawk makes no reference to using gnomes as a player character, nor do any of the later supplements. Neither do I find any reference to gnomes as player characters in The Strategic Review and early (pre-AD&D) issues of The Dragon magazine. Their sudden appearance as a playable race in the AD&D PHB is slightly strange...unless one considers they were being used as such all along.

Look: in OD&D, monsters (other than humans found in dungeons) do not have "levels of experience." Only player characters (or those with the potential to be player characters: men, elves, etc.) have levels. You'll find no group of goblins or lizard men containing a 5th level leader for groups over 50 or 200 or whatever. Liches (appearing in Greyhawk) are a slight exception as they were a high level Magic-User "in life;" the presumption is that now, as a monster, they no longer adventure nor advance in level. Tritons use spells "commensurate with their hit dice," though not mapping on an equal basis (5-7 hit dice mapping to 2nd-4th level ability) and hit dice are based on size and strength, not necessarily experience gained (some tritons are just born bigger, better, and stronger).

1977 Monster Manual

But gnomes, as stated "in all other respects [besides reclusiveness] resemble dwarves." And dwarves do have character classes: one "above average fighter" (of various levels) for every 40 dwarves appearing. Thus, gnomes, too, would have above average fighters of various levels. This is born out in the 1977 Monster Manual (released before the original Players Handbook) which shows gnomes encountered in groups of more than forty having fighter types up to 6th level (normal dwarf maximum per OD&D) and clerics up to 7th (again, normal dwarf maximum for NPC clerics, per Greyhawk). Thus, other than size (1' shorter, per the MM) gnomes appear to correspond in all aspects to their dwarf "cousins."

For me, this is enough to allow a player to claim their OD&D "dwarf" character is, in fact, a gnome...that gnomes are simply a smaller variation of the dwarf species. As I use the increased level limits found in Greyhawk (17 strength dwarves may progress to 7th level and 18 strength dwarves to 8th level), I would limit any such character to a maximum of 16 strength, seeing as how there doesn't appear to be gnomes over the 6th level fighting experience. Easy-peasy.

So then...from whence comes the idea of gnome illusionists?

That's an even more interesting quandary (at least for those who, like me, enjoy this type of pseudo-research). Dwarves are notoriously non-magical in the early editions of the game; they even have a higher resistance to magic than other character types (as do halflings) perhaps as a justification for their lack of wizards...despite raising the sticky question of who it is manufacturing all these dwarven warhammers +3?

My initial thought was that this was a svirfneblin thing. The "deep gnome" race, introduced by Gygax in his classic adventure Shrine of the Kuo-Toa is as notorious in its magic abilities as dwarves are in their absence. Like the Drow, the svirfnebli possess a number of innate spell abilities (summoning earth elementals?!), magical resistance, and enchanted accoutrements that make them inappropriate as player characters (*AHEM*), and I reasoned that perhaps the idea for gnomes as a magic-using (or, rather, illusion using) race might have germinated with this unique adventure.

A little cheap research, however, turns up the fact that Gygax both D1 and D2 after completing the AD&D Players Handbook, as a way of blowing off some steam. Gnomes already had their illusionist capabilities by then, and the svirneblin was simply a suped-up version of the gnome.

So then...what? Peter Aronson's illusionist class first appears in The Strategic Review #4 and neither the original article, nor the class "update" in The Dragon #1 make any remarks about dwarves or gnomes. In fact, no remarks are made regarding ANY racial restrictions for the class, though Aronson's (unpublished) notes clearly state "Where not otherwise specified, they are as [Magic-Users]." 

[a DM going by that statement might be inclined to allow the class to be played by both elves and half-elves, actually]

So what's the deal? Where does the idea come from? Who's to blame/responsible? There are no nonhuman deities in Supplement IV (Gods, Demi-Gods, and Heroes) that might show a "divine influence" on the species. So somehow we went from a short, burrowing variation on dwarves to the tricky illusionist types found from the PHB on to the present. What's the deal?

As near as I can tell, the first (and only) reference to gnomes having any magical ability comes from the original Monster Manual. For the most part, the entry for gnomes transcribes all the same OD&D material found in the original texts pertaining to dwarves (with some elaboration)...except for a single, additional sentence in the paragraph on special abilities:

"It is rumored that there exists gnomes with magical abilities up to 4th level, but this has not been proved."

It is rumored? Um, okay...where? When? By whom?

Here's what I think: structurally, mechanically, gnomes were no different from dwarves. The main differences between the two were size, temperament, and habitat, all things (more or less) related to each other (hills are smaller than mountains, thus gnomes are smaller than dwarves; hills are easier reached by humans, so gnomes must be more reclusive in nature to prevent their proliferation in the "realms of man").  However, to add variety, gnomes must be distinguishable from dwarves, and the distinct mechanic, from a dungeon-delving perspective, is their lack of size...thus, a lack of strength, and corresponding lack of fighting ability (or potential fighting ability) compared to their larger cousins.

But who wants to play a small, weak dwarf? Not many folks. The solution, then, is to give them some magical ability...something conspicuously absent from dwarf player characters. Of course, you can't give them straight magic-user abilities...that steps on the toes of the thing that makes elves (and half-elves) special. And clerical spells? No...Clerics are the purview of human characters (except for NPCs) as are druids, the "neutral option" when it comes to human magic (as outlined in Eldritch Wizardry).

So illusionists, the only new magical option not addressed in the OD&D books. When the gnome is made into its own separate racial option in AD&D (as opposed to a variation of dwarf), illusionist ends up assigned to the species as a possible class option. And just to keep it really special, no other race (besides humans) even has the option of illusionist as a career.

The OD&D version...well, my OD&D version...would allow progression a little higher than 4th, however. 6th gives the character to access those 3rd level spells that really help a "reclusive" gnome community to hide in plain sight (nondetection, hallucinatory terrain), as well as drive away nosy human neighbors (fear, confusion). Since I'm using Aronson's original experience progression chart (as published in The Strategic Review), I'd stop them short of 8th level ability: no first level MU spells, no shadow monsters or improved invisibility (sorry gnome backstabbers). Call it 6th level base, 7th maximum for gnomes of 17+ intelligence.

All right...that's enough gnome talk for the day. Though I will mention (perhaps to discuss later) that there are absolutely no gnome thieves (nor multi-class thieves) mentioned in the 1E Monster Manual's description of the gnome race. For that matter, there is no mention of thieves (or multi-class thieves) in the descriptions of dwarves, elves, or even halflings. Now this I find extremely interesting.

But I'll write about that later.

G is for Gnomes

[over the course of the month of April, I shall be posting a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, for every day of the week except Sunday. Our topic for this year's #AtoZchallenge? Revamping the Grand Duchy of Karameikos in a way that doesn't disregard its B/X roots]

G is for Gnomes. And dwarves, I suppose...but there aren't that many of those (comparatively) in Karameikos.

I've mentioned the gnomes before (briefly) when I was writing about the Elvenguard. Unlike the 'guard, the gnomish community of Karameikos has been established since the first light of publication, in the write-up of the duchy found in the B/X expert rulebook. Their description paints a fairly pastoral (if subterranean) picture of the demihumans:

NON-HUMANS

No solicitors, please.

Gnomes: Living in the hills, the gnomes are a quiet and solitary group. They make little effort to contact the outside world, but will deal with traders when such arrive. There are 620 gnomes living throughout this area. This number is divided between a large lair of 250 and several smaller outposts of no more than 100 each. A council of elders chosen by the gnomes, 1 from each outpost and 3 from the main lair, guides the members of the community in most decisions. This council will act as judges, handle trade, and distribute any money for the defense of the various outposts. However, any important decisions are decided by a general vote of the population. Strangers desiring to deal with the gnomes must first present their case to the elders for approval. Should this approval not be given (and the gnomes are extremely reluctant to involve themselves in the affairs of an outsider), the case will be closed. In the event that the council cannot decide, a general vote will be taken. If great differences prevent an outpost of the lair from agreeing peacefully on an issue, the dissident faction will leave and establish a new outpost in the area, In this manner, the gnomish lands are slowly growing, although disunity slows this somewhat.

[there are, by the way, no other species listed in the NON-HUMANS section of the expert set's Sample Wilderness text; they could have just headed the section "GNOMES"]

After this description is a paragraph about trade difficulties (already quoted in the aforementioned Elvenguard blog post), followed by a section marked Gnome Lair describing a sample...um, gnome lair (I love the use of the term "lair" by the way...this isn't a "home," "stronghold," or "warren," but a lair. Monsters have lairs, and in D&D lairs are meant to be explored...and perhaps plundered). The Gnome Lair section contains an un-keyed map of what might be a typical outpost or perhaps the main lair of the gnomish community (I always assumed the latter, but the text isn't explicit). It's decent enough with some evocative description, filled with pockets of trained ferrets that double as both pit traps and pens for the gnomes' hunting beasts.

The inclusion of gnomes is an interesting decision. Unlike AD&D, in B/X gnomes are not a player character race, but an NPC monster...though quite possibly a helpful one (alignment is listed as Lawful/Neutral). The monster entry for gnome in the Tom Moldvay penned Basic book is far more descriptive and outright different from any prior pass at the species; check this out:

OD&D: "Slightly smaller than Dwarves, and with longer beards, these creatures inhabit the hills and lowland burrows as opposed to the mountainous home which Dwarves choose. They are more reclusive than their cousins, but in all other respects resemble Dwarves."

Holmes: "Gnomes are similar to dwarves, whom they resemble. They are smaller, have longer noses and beards and inhabit low-land and hill burrows rather than mountains. They favor crossbows."

AD&D: Adds nothing besides notes on coloration, military formations, and AD&D mechanics (languages, magic resistance, etc.). Note their weapons are limited to short swords, clubs, spears, slings, and short bows; crossbows aren't even an option,

B/X (Tom Moldvay, B36): "Gnomes are a human-like race related to dwarves. They are smaller than dwarves, and have long noses and full beards. Gnomes have well developed infra vision (heat-sensing sight), and can "see" heat to 90' in the dark. They usually live in burrows in the lowlands. Gnomes are excellent metalsmiths and miners. They love gold and gems and have been known to make bad decisions just to obtain them. They love machinery of all kinds and like to use crossbows as missile weapons and war hammers in hand-to-hand combat. Gnomes like most dwarves, but war with goblins and kobolds who steal their precious gold. They will usually attack kobolds on sight."

[B/X also has a paragraph that details war parties, hit dice of chiefs, etc. similar to that of other humanoid species like hobgoblins and orcs. There is no mention of "leveled" leaders as gnome is not a character class in this edition]

Talk about going off the reservation! I'm not sure why they bother retaining the (earlier edition) AC of 5, when these "excellent metalsmiths" should probably be sporting at least chain and shield, if not better! The bit about their "bad decisions" based on greed speaks to their corruptibility, and their love of "machinery of all kinds" (!) can be read either as the primordial precursor to Dragonlance's "tinker gnomes" or something more sinister (like Tolkien/Lucas association of machines/technology with evil). For those who like to mix the SciFi with their fantasy, this is the perfect excuse to create a cyborg subterranean species, or a bunch of mechanical (rather than magical) automatons and "living statues."

Coupled with the politics and inter-clan relations described in the Expert set and you start to get this really interesting picture of what the gnome faction is all about...some sort of advanced egalitarian think-tank commune, an anti-Amish Amish group, something like a weaponized tribe of trapdoor spiders in humanoid shape...now just add some steampunk cybernetics to the giant ferrets and moles they routinely capture for experimentation, and you've got a vicious, powerful faction living within your borders.

I don't know why I tend to see gnomes as prone to evil...which is pretty weird considering I grew up reading (and loving) those Huygen/Poortvliet books. Maybe I've just seen too many "evil" depictions of them over the years: the insane followers of Keraptis (detailed in White Plume Mountain), the evil illusionist in Gygax's first Gord the Rogue novel...and who can forget their turn as a bat-riding, magic-wielding evil alien species in Marvel comics Star Trek (issue #16)? Certainly not me, True Believers; that story is indelibly burned into my childhood memories!

EVIL gnomes.

What it means is that I'm often writing up gnome assassins and assassin-illusionists with names like "Shoon Grinblade;" in my mind, D&D gnomes are always half-cracked/crazed and prone to psychotic episodes. Unless you're talking svirfneblin, of course; they are to my evil surface gnomes as the Drow are to their goody-good cousins.

*ahem*  ANYway, considering the potential of what can be done with B/X gnomes, the gnomes of Highforge (as GAZ1 names the community) is pretty banal. I mean, they mine silver for (and engage in trade with) the duke...and that's about it. Allston's GAZ1 increases the size of the community to 6500 (and adds a dwarf clan to the mix, perhaps to give the PCs an "in") and adds the following information:

Ruler: Dorfus Hilltopper, Gnome King of Highforge. Dorfus is a typical Gnome. He isn't too fond of humans -- though not impolite, he avoids dealing with them whenever possible; the annual Gnome Caravan is enough for him, and he doesn't even accompany it.
Population: 6500 gnomes and 1000 dwarves.
Laws: Within Highforge, the gnomes and dwarves ignore the Duke's Law and live by gnomish and dwarfish custom; they settle their own disputes, try their own criminals, and do not report law-breaking to the human officials. Additionally, they do not pay taxes to the the humans; they have their own economic system and only pay taxes when selling goods to humans. 

That's it for the gnomes; the only other notes are regarding the dwarves and their mines. No info is provided regarding the interconnectedness of the gnome silver and the the duchy's coinage. If it wasn't for the information in Mentzer's expert rulebook, one would never think the gnomes the source of the archduke's silver ore. One could even see Allston as working directly from the B/X source material...except that he sets up "King Dorfus" (a portmanteau of "Dork" and "Doofus?") in place of the egalitarian council of elders originally described.

Personally, I'd probably axe all of the BECMI/GAZ info on the gnomes...there's just not much there worth keeping. Not only does it set up potential adventures for B/X player characters (meeting and establishing relations/trade with the gnomes) but it allows the gnomes to be a powerful "wild card" faction in the region...for good or ill. However, here are some additional ideas you might want to run with:

Option #1: Gnomes as Escaped Slaves. Long time readers of the blog know I'm a big fan of adventure S2: White Plume Mountain...I even did a B/X conversion of it waaaay back in 2009. If I were to start a new campaign set in Karameikos, I'd probably set "the feathered peak" somewhere in the northwest Cruth Mountains. What if the gnomish community in Karameikos were descendants of gnomes that had revolted and escaped from the yoke of Keraptis (and their corrupt, evil brethren). They were probably evil themselves (once), having made "poor decisions" because of the gold and gems the evil wizard offered...but having repented their wicked ways, they've since sought a clean slate, far away. It remains their secret shame...one they do not want discovered as there are people who would consider them "war criminals" of the type that need to be expunged. What's more, they live in constant fear of Keraptis (or his lich or whatever) discovering their location and returning to claim them. Helps explain the reclusiveness and unwillingness to deal with outsiders.

Coming for YOU, man.

Option #2: Gnomes as Evil Racist Slavers. Racist towards humans, that is. The gnomes are the biggest customers of the Iron Ring slavers guild (or the secret powers behind the guild) requiring a constant influx of bodies to work their mines. Humans are a cheap, expendable resource, and the growth of the duchy has just meant lower prices. Plus, the gnomes have developed a taste for "long pig" (sure, make 'em cannibals, too) and used up slaves go straight into the cook pots. This becomes especially twisted if you decide to go with the BECMI idea of gnomes as the duchy's silversmiths: Does the archduke suspect how his silver is being mined? Is he complicit (or a secret participant) in the slave trade? Regardless, I'm certain the gnomes are "skimming" silver from the duke's shipments, using the extra for the purchase of gold, jewels, and (of course) more slaves. Evil, evil gnomes.

Option #3: Gnomes as Oppressed Species. Or perhaps it is the gnomes themselves that have been enslaved. Why have the gnomes become Stefan's silver miners? Because they have no choice in the matter! Having discovered rich veins of silver in the hills, and ready-made workforce on site, the Duke has used his army to put the gnomes to the task of mining the precious metal. Of course, it helps that the Callarii elves have a long history of bad blood with the gnomes...the Elvenguard was only too happy to aid in pacifying the "reluctant workforce." Let's face facts: gnomes aren't an adventuring species (like dwarves, elves, and halflings); to humans, they're a strange little species with a weird machine fixation. They're not that far removed from goblins or kobolds (probably related to both, seeing as how they speak those languages!) and there's nothing wrong with exploiting such creatures for the good of the duchy. Hell, the duke's being nice...he could have just put them to the sword (as he does with other humanoids)...they should be grateful he's giving them a chance to work his mines. Maybe if we upped their daily ration of gruel they'd actually whistle while they work.
; )

Delving 4E: An Interlude

AKA "Delving 4E Part 3.5"

In my last post, I gave my thoughts about the classes and builds of 4th Edition, specifically some of the stuff I liked with regard to conceptualizations (is that a word? spellcheck says yes). The post only addressed classes in 4E PHB, and long-time players of D&D will notice the conspicuous absent of a couple-three loooooong time classes of the D&D game: the druid and the bard.

The druid is the real glaring absence...available as a player character class since the days of OD&D (it first appeared in Supplement 3: Eldritch Wizardry), the druid is a standard class in both AD&D 1 and 2, D&D 3 (and 3.5), and even makes it into BECMI as a "proto-prestige class" of cleric (see the Mentzer Companion set). It provides a natural (as in "nature") counterpoint to the cleric's more organized worship and is a bit of a bridge between the magic-user and cleric archetypes, gaining some of the spells and benefits of each, as well as hybrid selection of weapons and armor.

It is also the favorite class of my buddy +Heron.

The bard's history is a little shorter, only first appearing in an appendix of the original AD&D PHB, and never in any of the "basic" games (the one in my B/X Companion doesn't count). Unlike the druid, the bard has undergone several significant revisions over the years, beginning first with its jump from 1E to 2E (where it went from a more martial class to more "trickster" as rogue subclass) and from there to 3E where it became a hybrid support class with an emphasized arcane (wizardry) flavor, and a favored class of gnomes (by 3.5).

The bard was my favorite class back in my 1E days. But that's a post for another time.

I should probably also mention the assassin, which first appeared in OD&D's Supplement 2 (Blackmoor) before the 1E PHB. While 2nd edition initially axed the class, it later appeared in the Al-Qadim setting book as a religious-zealot reimagining, as well as a "monster class" (the Headsman/Thug) in the BECMI Master set. As of 3E, it still wasn't a core class, though it makes and appearance in the 3E DMG as a prestige class. As it's been MIA for so many years, its absence from 4E isn't nearly as surprising as the lack of druid and bard options.

Welp, the fourth edition's PHB2 does contain both the bard and the druid, along with updated versions of 3E's barbarian and sorcerer class, and something called an avenger...an assassin rewrite of serious religious overtones (something reminiscent of video games like that bald Hitman guy with the numbers on his scalp or the white-hooded Guild dudes).

[for the record, I draw a very severe distinction between the raging berserker of 3E and the flavor/skill-heavy barbarian that appeared in the 1E Unearthed Arcana]

The PHB2 also adds three completely new (to D&D) classes in the invoker, shaman, and warden, as well as additional race options in the deva, gnome, half-orc, and shifter. As I said in my earlier post, I'm not a fan of 4E's races (especially the new ones), though I have to admit the gnome tickles me a bit with its "fade away" power (would have been a useful ability for my old gnome assassin, Shoon Grinblade).

Even the cover art is bad.

Here's the thing: with one possible exception, all these classes leave me ice-cold. Or worse, they just plain irritate me...both in conception and execution, most of the stuff in the PHB2 is a big bucket of crap. In my opinion, of course...perhaps other people have found these options to be fun, interesting, and exciting. For me? No, sorry.

I mean the druid...the druid, what the f---! The druid is some sort of lycanthrope from the get go (though only a fight-worthy one...the PHB2 suffers A LOT from the basic premise of fourth edition...). The warden appears to simply be "the other druid" for people who don't want some sort of were-priest. Maybe they had too many options for druids and split it up over two or three classes? But then, you've already got this shifter race, and... I don't get it. What's with cranking the animalism up to 11 in this book?

When Heron told me druids were his favorite class and was waxing eloquent on their virtues, never once did he mention the way their dire wolverine attributes matured with level progression.

[ha...my child just saw the PDF images of the gnomes on my computer and asked, "Are those gelflings?" We just watched The Dark Crystal the other night]

[it's funny because they don't really look like gnomes]

Anyway...aside from the gnome and the concept of a shapeshifter race (I'm a fan of Roberson's Cheysuli books, and I think the archetype is pretty good "fantasy;" I've used it to good effect with, for example, DragonQuest in the past), the only thing I really liked in the PHB2 was the bard, and its optional martial build, which reminds me very much of my "glory days" playing 1E AD&D. It would be tempting (for me) to play such a character...but then, I suspect, that even the most martially oriented bard would look pretty tame next to other class-builds (and not just the fighter). Maybe.

So, yeah; that's it for the PHB2. There's nothing else here that I really want to comment on. Not in a positive, constructive fashion anyway.

It's Called Insomnia...

Fine...adding a gnome class to the new book. It's ridiculous as an other "demi-human."

No, that's not gnome race; gnome class. That's another score of spells, too.

(*sigh*)