D&D Beyond: Halflings

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
To be fair, it’s working for them. Fluff married to mechanics is what their core audience wants. Those of us who like to write our own fluff are the ones who tend to be most interested in discussing the game on forums, but we are the minority.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


gyor

Legend
So basically, it seems to add up to "Yes, Halflings are Hobbits. Only don't call them that, lest ye summon the mighty Tolkien Estate."

Which is fair enough - that's why they're in D&D in the first place. It just feels like a very lazy take on the race.

There are some different twists, such as the Halfling Pantheon, honestly I hope they also cover exceptions to the usual Halfling rule, such as Athas Halflings (Cannibals) and Ghostwise Halflings (telepathic Halflings) and that Book of Vile Darkness Evil Halfling race I forget their name.

Also the history of Lurien, the Halfling nation on Faerun. Most D&D settings don't have Halfling nations with armies and stuff. Maybe Kindar too as some suggest they are related to Halflings.
 

dave2008

Legend
You didn't know about them because they weren't presented as part of the rules. They were presented as setting material. The trend, now, is to include the setting material along side the rules. There's never been a complete divide, but they're very intermingled, now. Just looking at the new psionics rules from UA, Mearls seemed incapable of presenting psionics without telling us where it came from. Yes, I can ignore it, but they seem to be increasing the saturation and it's showing in certain rules.

I don't see it that way. When I look at a monster I see a stat block and then everything else is a suggestion (heck I even look at the stat block as a suggestion). Just because they are next to each other doesn't mean anything to me.

For example: VGtM explained that beholders are created from the dreams of other beholders. However, I just made stats for a beholder hive mother and that is what spawns new beholders in my games (from 2e I think). I don't use the lore from VGtM, but it was a fun read nontheless.
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
The wizard isn’t creating a sentient race of people who will go forth and excercise free will, grow and evolve, reproduce without any further interference, etc. and the wizard can never become an actual greater god just by learning more magic. They can become something that the weak might worship, but they can’t become a font of divine power, answering prayers, creating a divine realm on the astral plane, influencing broad categories of mortal life, etc.

There is an enormous gulf between wizard and god.

Depends on the setting. We had one campaign where it was EXACTLY that. Wizards and magical beings became gods.

And Dark Sun did the sorcerer kings, with templars that worshipped them. (more or less).
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
This is part of a trend of just putting way, way too much fluff into the core game. They seem to feel the need to explain every little thing -- and to do it in a way that implies it is so across all D&D settings. I just want a toolbox of monsters, spells, etc. to throw into a home brew fantasy setting. I don't want a Weave, a Far Realm, wild mages, Blood War, Great Wheel, et al. in my game. I've never minded that those toys were in the box. I've just never used them, but good for those who did. If I wanted a setting that was tightly integrated into the rules, I'd play one of the other games that offered something like that.

Probably part of it is that, while the current team is fantastic about building mechanics, I haven't been particularly thrilled with the fluff they've added. That's a taste thing, and I might feel different if I was bowled over by the specific fluff.

It seems to be a trend in a lot of media these days, filling in every little detail, not with vague, open-ended possibilities, but with hard, specific fact.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Depends on the setting. We had one campaign where it was EXACTLY that. Wizards and magical beings became gods.

And Dark Sun did the sorcerer kings, with templars that worshipped them. (more or less).

Sure, and in one of my home games there have never been gods as dnd or IRL religions conceive of them, but beings lik Archfey, coatls, Infernal Archdukes, etc have cults that worship them, and the biggest religion in the world is a combination of animism and iconic reverence of The Nine Eidolons, who are basically saints who were once powerful mortals (defined loosely, as one was a dragon).

But we’re talking vanilla 5e dnd, here. And in vanilla 5e dnd, The Queen of Air and Darkness isn’t a god, and won’t ever be outside of some cosmic event like a god dying. A wizard could become the next Lady of Winter, but they can’t become gods simply by getting better and better at wizarding.

The Sorcerer Kings are a great example. You say they are worshipped, more or less, but to steal from a fairly good DC movie, it’s more less, not more more. They definitely are not gods.
 

Probably part of it is that, while the current team is fantastic about building mechanics, I haven't been particularly thrilled with the fluff they've added. That's a taste thing, and I might feel different if I was bowled over by the specific fluff.

That's the rub. I myself like almost all the fluff this edition, so I'm perfectly happy with having fluff and rules mixed together to form a more attractive whole. (About the only thing I don't like in the fluff is the Tieflings - I still prefer Planescape's mixed parentage approach.) If you dislike the fluff, then I can see why you'd dislike that mixture.
 

It is fluff material, the more that is released and the deeper it goes the more people will like it or hate it.

As an example I loved Lords of Madness: The Book of Aberrations and how it treated Beholders and Mind Flayers, actually all the monsters shown in it. This also means I hate the new take on Beholders from the Volo guide and their fluff about new Beholders being born when old Beholders have nightmares.

Does it matter? Not in the least. I take what fluff works for me and I ignore what does not.

No one makes me have to change my nomadic packs of Gnolls that travel in small clan units (like a pack of wolves or hyenas) into lunatic with infinite bellies because the new fluff says so.
 

The purpose of a forum is to share opinions and engage in discussion.
And I am sharing the opinion that the strategy about complaining about the fluff in books is a poor one for getting different fluff. And further more I am attempting to engage in discussion about what would be an actual effective strategy to achieve said goal. Now maybe you may gain some perverse pleasure out of people being unhappy indefinitely with no chance of getting what they desire, because they tripled down on a bad strategy (these same complaints came out after the MM and Volo's, and I really don't think the third time will be the charm), but I like to think the world is a better place if there is at least a pathway to victory, even if it is highly unlikely.
 

Remove ads

Top