Gnome Paladins.

gnomes have advantage on all charisma saving throws against magic as a racial passive and paladins get to make all their saving throws using charisma, now add Unflappable:

Unflappable - you ignore the effects of disadvantage on charisma checks.  (note that it does not say you cannot have disadvantage, but rather that you ignore its effects, one of which is the negation of advantage)

now you have a character who has +5 and advantage on all saves vs magic, regardless of any negative circumstances.

 

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Checks are not saves.
"You use your ability scores and their modifiers to interact with the game world in three basic ways: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws" (How to Play).


Bonuses on STR attack rolls don't apply to STR ability checks, and vice-versa.

Paladin gnome still seems kinda broken, but at least Unflappable wouldn't work with saves.
Checks are not saves.
"You use your ability scores and their modifiers to interact with the game world in three basic ways: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws" (How to Play).


Bonuses on STR attack rolls don't apply to STR ability checks, and vice-versa.

Paladin gnome still seems kinda broken, but at least Unflappable wouldn't work with saves.

while i hope they eventually add something that actually sets saves apart from checks, like giving martial classes a way to avoid becoming worse at saves as the game progresses, right now saving throws are handled as ability checks (1d20 + mod), and i have yet to see sufficient evidence that saving throws are not simply a type of ability check.

gnome paladins aren't overpowered at all, as +5 with advantage has to keep pace with an up to +10 spell DC, which it does not actually manage to do.

EDIT: what you provided qualifies as circumstantial evidence at best. 

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Each ability score has a sections for attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. The barbarian's rage grants him advantage on rolls, checks, and throws. His L19 ability Primal Rage specifies only Strength checks or saves. The paladin's Divine Grace ability works on saving throws alone, not saving throws and checks. The rogue's Uncanny Dodge works on saving throws alone. Trap Sense feat gives advantage to your saves and disadvantage to trap attacks. The Unflappable feat specifies ability checks alone. The list goes on.

Attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws are all neatly separated and intended to be separate. I can get a bonus on saves but that doesn't apply to checks, and vice-versa.
Agreed, although the rules don't explicitly say that saves are not checks, every  kind of buff or penalty in the game applies specifically to one or more of the three categories, and there's no sense wording anything that way if they're meant to be interchangeabe, much less wording everything that way. They are kept separate specifically to prevent this kind of shenanigans.
not attempting to claim they are interchangable, rather that one is a subset of another as applied to a specific situation.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Let's all take a moment to appreciate the incongruity here: trickster gnomes are particularly effective as a paladin, but they are particularly ineffective as illusionists. I find this hilarious for some reason.
How are trickster gnomes ineffective as illusionists?
Because they get Minor Illusion from their race, but then they are forced to take it again from their class. So they end up with one less cantrip than they should have.
Also their racial advantage on saves against magic overlaps the illusionist's advantage on saves against illusions. The cantrip problem will be fixed as soon as they write a second illusion cantrip, but gnome illusionists still lose out on a class feature.
Because they get Minor Illusion from their race, but then they are forced to take it again from their class. So they end up with one less cantrip than they should have.

Yeah, I saw this as well. In my game, I'm just going to allow a Gnome Illusionist to treat his two cantrips completely separately: that means a Gnome Illusionist can have two minor illusion effects active at one time. This could even be seen as a "RAW" reading of things, as well. The spell does say "... until you cancel it or until you cast this spell again." If you know two different Minor Illusion cantrips, those are two different spells, and thus they won't interfere with each other if you try to cast them both.

I think that does a pretty good job of making Forest Gnomes into superb illusionists.
Because they get Minor Illusion from their race, but then they are forced to take it again from their class. So they end up with one less cantrip than they should have.



They need to have a general rule that if you get the same feature twice, you can pick something else instead. In the case of gnome illusionists, they should be able to choose a different cantrip since they already know minor illusion.

Also their racial advantage on saves against magic overlaps the illusionist's advantage on saves against illusions. The cantrip problem will be fixed as soon as they write a second illusion cantrip, but gnome illusionists still lose out on a class feature.



This a problem with the advantage mechanics in general. I understand why they don't allow advantage stacking for simplicity's stake, but since they keep giving out advantage like candy in race and class features, they really need to have a rule for stacking advantage, even if it's an optional rule. I think a +2 bonus on the roll for each additional instance of advantage would be a good option.
Well, I think part of the design strategy with advantage is to make is so basically nothing stacks, to keep bonus under control. I'm sympathetic with that. But it means they need to pay attention to situations where benefits overlap in a bad way.

I think this particular situation could be fixed by saying that illusionists get advantange on ability checks to detect illusions, while gnomes get advantage on saving throws. Those are basically non-overlapping things. They might then want to give illusionists another class benefit. Personally, I think it would be nice if they could create both a silent image and ghost sound effect together with the minor image spell.
What I have done with overlaps of advantage for race/class is give the equivalent of skill focus (i.e. "treat any d20 roll of 9 or less as a 10") and they still have advantage on top of that. This has work for me so far at low levels. What do you folks think? Any blatant problems I missed with doing this?
I think this particular situation could be fixed by saying that illusionists get advantange on ability checks to detect illusions, while gnomes get advantage on saving throws. Those are basically non-overlapping things.

I dig it.

Danny