Your Suspension of Disbelief: SHATTERED!

[Coroc]

[MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION] "For me, the distinction between "finesse" and non-finesse melee weapons shatters suspension far more than dual-wielding. Dagger, sword, spear, club, axe - with any of those, it's good to strike strongly AND good to strike accurately AND good to outpace (and anticipate) the opponent's moves and countermoves"

That is of course true, but would require a different Approach e.g. dex to hit and str for damage in most cases (except crossbow that is).

But were you never bothered by a halfling wielding a halberd? Imagine a size of a kid Person with a 6ft melee weapon. That would be liek a human using an 12-18 ft pike for (Close) melee, It simply would not work due to momentum and leverage so this is (b.s.)^2 and gets houseruled in my campaigns. I must admit that my dwarves tend to be 4ft rather than the 5ft dwarves of these days.

My houseruling tends to be Floating, e.g. one of my Players wanted to Play a dwarf barbarian with a halberd. I said to him "Ahm a dwarf and barbarian is compromise #1 for me, a barbarian wielding a halberd is #2 (Imagine Conan with a halberd that would lok awfully stupid), and a dwarf wielding a halberd is #3.

So i give you your dwarven barbarian and but he has to use a maul or greataxe. So everybody was happy, and it was a ravenloft campaign anyway so i did not have to evolve the dwarven tribes of the great plains.

 

[Riley37]

Sure, with the caveat that inconsistent and unpredictable spellcasting, in a world where PCs understand that magic is inconsistent and unpredictable, makes for a setting which I find silly. I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief that far.

On one hand, the extent of your willingness is up to you. On another hand, I see room for shades of nuance.

In 5E, casting a spell is often the action with the *most* consistent and predictable outcome. If you shoot arrows, they'll follow Newtonian principles of motion, and other factors such as friction; they'll fly in parabolic paths, with kinetic energy you could calculate to multiple significant figures; but you can still miss. If you cast Magic Missile, there's no check to see whether you managed to successfully shape arcane forces in accordance your intent. You cast the spell, and you hit. If you cast Detect Magic, you will learn whether the sword was enchanted with Evocation or Abjuration; there is zero chance that you will mistake one for the other, unless your DM house-rules an INT (Arcana) check.

In Shadowrun, there's a skill check, to see how successfully you shaped arcane forces in accordance your intent, AND there's a check for "drain", to see how badly that process hurt you. That doesn't make it random like a Wand of Wonder; if you cast Illusion, then you produce an illusion, or you produce it at some cost, or the spell fizzles. In Mage the Awakening, you produce an illusion, and you might also incur Paradox (when you mess with reality, sometimes reality pushes back). Magic is still reliable *enough* that people use it for healing, or to influence the weather, or to fly.

Of course, in TRPG, the rules are not the only factor. If your DM thinks that it's hilarious for Conjure Animals to produce sharks, when you're in the lost mines of Phandelver, then that's a DM issue, not a rules issue.

And then there's "Sorceror's Apprentice" in Fantasia. If you're careless, if you fall asleep mid-spell, there's consequences.

 

[Riley37]

Imagine Conan with a halberd that would lok awfully stupid), and a dwarf wielding a halberd is #3.

Okay, I'm imagining Conan with a halberd, with a pile of foes at his feet. The foes look awfully stupid, because dead people lose their wits.

Wait, when you said "stupid", did you mean "not conforming to prevailing stereotypes"? There were people in the 1940s who thought that jet airplanes looked stupid, because airplanes are supposed to have propellers. Jet fighters are *effective*. So is Conan using a halberd's reach and leverage to smash skulls and cleave limbs. So is Rudolph the Reindeer, on foggy nights. So is Steve Rogers, taking a flag from a lowered flagpole.

Humans of varying heights use weapons of corresponding blade and handle lengths. IMO dwarves and halflings can apply the same principle. Humans have used weapons *twenty feet long*; Swiss mercenaries, wielding pike, fighting in formation, ruled a battlefield or two, back in the day. Halflings might prefer 8' pike, or something that a human would wield as a spear. If a platoon of halfling pike-wielders shish-kebab a dozen elvish swordsmen, then who looks more stupid, the slayer or the slain?

 

[Umbran]

Humans have used weapons *twenty feet long*; Swiss mercenaries, wielding pike, fighting in formation, ruled a battlefield or two, back in the day.

]

The key there is *fighting in formation*. If you want to have a phalanx of halfling halberders, where each one has a variant of the Protection fighitng style, I thnk that would be awesome to behold.

But, large, tight formatins are not the hallmark of adventuring parties - and te rules are optimized for adventurers. Wielding a super-long weapon when standing alone does seem like a career (and life) limiting choice.

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION] If a cultural and technological Level on which a class is based upon is conforming to you as being a stereotype ok, let us take the example of Conan. The first thing when confronting those shiny Knights from 1000 years in the future is surely not the Axe which blade is to small for his taste, but their shiny perfect Fitting armor as soon as he downs one who is about his size. Oh wait he is barred by class Definition from wearing it because of cultural Level ... ah wrong because of stereotype of course.

And do not argue he got unarmed defense and can move faster and yadda: You can even swim in full plate armor and you are less likely to drown than doing so with hide and kilt and layered linen which soaks with water. Besides that you can high jump, far jump climb ladders, run alsmost as fast as without armor with sophisticated plate.

And what is the weapon of choice to Counter plate? A halberd. There we got it. Is it stereotype again? No it is technological and cultural Level and neccesity by a given context.

I am perfectly fine with your halfling pikes, they will have about the size of a human spear and be totally useless to said halfing other than in a Formation. I am not even debating damage die there which should be 1d8 of course instead of 1d10, because then the next guy comes here and writes "But it is a Fantasy game, you know dragons/ giants etc would break their bones because of their weight etc etc." Yea, i know, but that is a total Fantasy Thing without RL equivalent. "Barbaric" cultures compared to 16th century Landsknechts and Knights are a Thing in the real world though and thus altering them gives me much more disbelief than any purely Fantasy creature. Maybe i am bit biased, but OP asked and that is my answer.

 

[Horwath]

When we are roleplaying a tavern scene and I dont have ceramic or wooden mug for my bear.

 

[guachi]

The DM did not bother giving names to (unimportant) NPCs. Instead he called them Guard 1, Guard 2, Barmaid 1, etc. Terrible!

Though from a metagaming perspective, it made it easy to see which NPCs were significant and which ones were not. If an NPC had a real name it was like okay, this one is important to the story. lol.

I operate D&D as if the PCs are in a movie. Important NPCs get names, just like in a movie.

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=3404]Ogre Mage[/MENTION] (Pun intended) maybe he should have given them names e.g. Mueller 1, Mueller 2, Smith 1, Smith 2, John Doe, Jane Doe, Irony off

If the Players are to make a conversation DM should eventually provide a Name, esecially if they are to talk to them more often.
But equally interesting is: "My Name is of no concern to you!" Or "Why do you want to know my Name?"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Our group make Monty Python and the Holy Grail look like Game of Thrones.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Okay, I'm imagining Conan with a halberd, with a pile of foes at his feet. The foes look awfully stupid, because dead people lose their wits.

Wait, when you said "stupid", did you mean "not conforming to prevailing stereotypes"? There were people in the 1940s who thought that jet airplanes looked stupid, because airplanes are supposed to have propellers. Jet fighters are *effective*. So is Conan using a halberd's reach and leverage to smash skulls and cleave limbs. So is Rudolph the Reindeer, on foggy nights. So is Steve Rogers, taking a flag from a lowered flagpole.

Humans of varying heights use weapons of corresponding blade and handle lengths. IMO dwarves and halflings can apply the same principle. Humans have used weapons *twenty feet long*; Swiss mercenaries, wielding pike, fighting in formation, ruled a battlefield or two, back in the day. Halflings might prefer 8' pike, or something that a human would wield as a spear. If a platoon of halfling pike-wielders shish-kebab a dozen elvish swordsmen, then who looks more stupid, the slayer or the slain?

That mostly just says to me that we need more fantasy-action movies involving halberds. Notwithstanding that fighting/sparring with halberds involving someone (who looks) semi-competent is all kinds of awesome.