D&D Beyond: Halflings

[Yaarel]

Strictly speaking, without resorting to spell research or magic item creation.

A high level wizard can arguably create a Clone of a beast, using the wand to obviate the noncostly material component.

Then use Wish to cast the Awaken spell (because it is on the druid spell list).

In this way, the wizard can create intelligent organically reproductive life, out of nothing except magic.



Consider spell research.

The Awaken spell that affects only plant or beast, is level 5. Thus augmenting it to Awaken a humanoid would use about a level 6 slot. Clone at level 8 can create a living duplicate of a humanoid. All doable. Of course, this Awakened Clone would be a Twin, a fully conscious autonomous being who may or may not get along with the wizardly sibling. Either the Twin would be a player character with a magical origin, or else, a nonplayer character that the DM controls, especially if the DM wants an ‘evil twin’ nemesis.

With regard to spell research, to be on the safe side, I would probably make Create Humanoid Sentient Life a single level 9 spell, that allows choice about the characteristics, such as male, female, human, elf, warforged, or so on.

Recall how Corellon creates the first elves as clones from his own blood. In other words, Corellon is using something like a level 9 wizard spell to create life.

 

[Charles Rampant]

I really enjoyed this video. I'm a fairly traditional guy when it comes to fantasy, and I'm happy to stick to the tropes; this depiction of the Halflings feels like a good way to explaining their culture and religion in a package that the players can understand easily. The essential problem with Halfling adventurers is that their whole culture seemed to mitigate against combat and violence, and you can only lean on Bilbo so often before you wonder how they survived in a world full of Orcs and Dragons. Having their entire race so imbued with luck that they just so happen to have the right magic item lying around the village when trouble rolls in is very charming. It also makes it easier to use their idyllic rural villages than it might otherwise be, since you can have something that is of the players' world (violence, magic items, adventure!) within the other world of the village.

I'm also very happy to have lots of divine influence on D&D races. The gods being more than just a bunch of names in the Cleric section of the book is only a good thing, and I'm not interested in the fantasy genre as an atheistic pursuit.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I prefer to lose half-elves completely, and replace them with Halflings. Some of my reasoning is below.
One: 'Halfling' is not a name for a people they would embrace, IMO. Seems pejorative. But it fits a hybrid race, much like Half Orc.
Two: The children of elves and humans have 'Luck' because of a form of residual magic from the Elven side.
Three: Stouts share more resemblance to their human parent, while Lightfoots (Lightfeet?) share more resemblance to the Elven one.
Three: Short stature. Why not? They are a result of strange bedfellows. I'd say that Halflings are rare, with most 'Half-Elves' either being (in Race terms in game) either Elves or Humans. But occasionally a true Halfling is born. Smaller in stature but with that undefinable 'luck'.
Four: Wanderlust type traits fit this nicely from an intrinsic level (don't really fit in fully with either society) and an extrinsic level (people view them as good luck when they pass through their village, much like the chimney sweep at a wedding idea - though they are outsiders and generally not welcome to stay for too long).

I've always thought half elves were a great stat option as written with perhaps some nice who is my father background fluff available to them, but honestly feel a bit mechanically-optimal.

So, there is a very brief and poorly explained précis of my thoughts, but that's how I like to use them in my world.

 

[dave2008]

I agree, [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION].

Somehow "godifying" concepts dumbs them down. It is moreorless identical to saying, "the devil made me do it", which shortcircuits the investigation of actual influences and causes. Too much reliance on gods makes the setting feel dumber.

And the main problem is, hard-baking the gods into descriptions makes it increasing difficulty to present the feel of a nonpolytheistic campaign.

But it is not hard-baked. I have a player who plays a halfling, and whatever Mike says or is in MGToF will have 0 effect on how he plays or the lore he has established for his character.

Fluff in D&D is not hard-baked into anything. Take or leave it is up to you!

 

[Yaarel]

Fluff in D&D is not hard-baked into anything. Take or leave it is up to you!

If what you said is true, and fluff is easy to take or leave, then nobody would care about psionics, neither for it nor against it.

In fact, fluff, flavor, and narrative matter.

And if it happens to be fluff that you like and take, then the game is extra good and meaningful.

But if there is an increasing amount of fluff that you are trying to leave, then the game becomes increasingly difficult to use. The difficulty is the flavor pervades the meaning of the mechanics and the contextual connections between mechanics, which interferes with the DMs narrative adjudication, as well as the expectations of other players.

 

[dave2008]

If what you said is true, and fluff is easy to take or leave, then nobody would care about psionics, neither for it nor against it.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your example. How is psionics any different? I would say the "official" psionics fluff doen't matter because I don't even know what the "official" psionics fluff is and it has had no effect on our game.

In fact, fluff, flavor, and narrative matter.

Let me clarify: I do think they matter, I just don't think the "official" fluff, flavor, and narrative matter. They only affect your game if you let it. IMO.

 

[Mercule]

These things are kinda losing me with how integral they're making the gods in the lives of mortals, with seemingly fundamental elements of their lives tied to the whimsy of the gods. It makes writing distant god settings difficult to present to people.

I especially dislike when simply traits, such as wanderlust, are explained as somehow godly in nature. Why can wanderlust not simply be a natural trait that "adventurer" halflings happen to experience more strongly than others? Is not wanderlust a fairly integral element of all adventurers? The desire to leave home, seek out more, carve out your own destiny?

Putting such elements as divine seems to...lessen them. In fact, putting any natural element of humanoid existence as divinely-inspired lessens the lore as a whole. I get that D&D has always veered closer to the "divine creator" origin myths for most races, but their creations seem lesser for the fact that the gods need to constantly wind them up.

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.

 

[Yaarel]

And that, in a sentence, is the problem.

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.

 

[dave2008]

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.

But those things are not tightly integrated into the rules! I played D&D for about 20 years before I found out about the Weave, Far Realm, and Blood War. It didn't affect my game at all then, and they don't affect my game now that I know they exist!

 

[Mercule]

But those things are not tightly integrated into the rules! I played D&D for about 20 years before I found out about the Weave, Far Realm, and Blood War. It didn't affect my game at all then, and they don't affect my game now that I know they exist!

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.