Why do Halflings get damage bonuses?

[HoolMarshes Dweller]

I always found it funny that "balance" is now tossed around so much that we have to have every "build" meet or nearly meet this goal. But hey, I'd just make it against certain types of opponents.

 

[TrippyHippy]

There you go, you don't like it. That's what you want to say, and who can gainsay that? You don't mind if halflings, due to being limited to damage from small melee weapons, are worse at being fighters, rogues and clerics. If you want the halflings to have a different way of balancing it out, then you should brainstorm them and share it with the rest of us.

This is a rule presented in a playtest document, and it is as unnecessary as some of the other racial rules that have been brought in for 'balance'. I am saying tone down the whole racial abilities schtick, as they are providing absurd situations. You don't need to include racially based martial bonuses at all, in the same way you don't need to include +1 to all Abilities for Humans. It just game design 'balance' gone mad.

But claiming that the solution that exists is unrealistic or implausible against opposition that points out it is perfectly plausible (or at least as plausible as anything else in D&D rules) then perhaps you're just wasting time.

The arguments presented here are not plausable explanations for Halflings universally being able to weild selected weapons to cause greater damage than other races more than twice their physical mass, irrespective of Class training or anything else. There is no realistic explanation for a Halfling bartender or midwife being able to weild a short sword with greater potency than a Human warrior. There is no realistic explanation for why Halfling Wizards can inflict greater damage with these weapons than Human Wizards.

I'm not going to bother continuing with revolving arguments with the rest of your points as we will be here for months, else. It's not going to stop me saying my peace in a playtest situation though.

 

[Obryn]

There is no realistic explanation for a Halfling bartender or midwife being able to weild a short sword with greater potency than a Human warrior.

They can't. They have a lower attack bonus, probably lower Strength, and certainly no Combat Superiority. An average of 1 point on the die is miniscule in comparison.

There is no realistic explanation for why Halfling Wizards can inflict greater damage with these weapons than Human Wizards.

Because the Halfling Wizard was trained in that weapon from an early age to defend their homeland from goblins and kobolds. And halflings are aces with daggers.

-O

 

[TrippyHippy]

They can't. They have a lower attack bonus, probably lower Strength, and certainly no Combat Superiority. An average of 1 point on the die is miniscule in comparison.

...and shouldn't be there in any case.

Because the Halfling Wizard was trained in that weapon from an early age to defend their homeland from goblins and kobolds. And halflings are aces with daggers.

-O

And I guess Human Wizards were all brought up in cultures that never had to defend themselves from anybody?! The whole thing is completely arbitrary and ridiculous in conception.

 

[Obryn]

...and shouldn't be there in any case.

Eh? It's fun.

And I guess Human Wizards were all brought up in cultures that never had to defend themselves from anybody?! The whole thing is completely arbitrary and ridiculous in conception.

Welcome to D&D! (And humans were too busy being good in every score to practice at slings.)

Also, it's a wizard. They will both be bad at daggers and should use their cantrips. "Halflings being less bad at something they shouldn't be doing" is really what we're looking at.

-O

 

[TrippyHippy]

Welcome to D&D! (And humans were too busy being good in every score to practice at slings.)

Also, it's a wizard. They will both be bad at daggers and should use their cantrips. "Halflings being less bad at something they shouldn't be doing" is really what we're looking at.

-O

So the real criteria for choosing new rules in D&D is whether they are arbitrary and illogical enough to hold with the traditions of D&D......great!

 

[Obryn]

So the real criteria for choosing new rules in D&D is whether they are arbitrary and illogical enough to hold with the traditions of D&D......great!

Well, "fun" and "interesting" certainly are. This is both. It's a rule which makes it cool for halflings to use slings and daggers. Nothing more, nothing less.

-O

 

[TrippyHippy]

Well, "fun" and "interesting" certainly are. This is both. It's a rule which makes it cool for halflings to use slings and daggers. Nothing more, nothing less.

-O

Well, I don't see it as being fun or interesting to have arbitrary rules that make no sense whatsoever, but each to his or her own I guess.

 

[Obryn]

but each to his or her own I guess.

Exactly! Wasn't that the point?

-O

 

[FireLance]

So the real criteria for choosing new rules in D&D is whether they are arbitrary and illogical enough to hold with the traditions of D&D......great!

You have encapsulated the inherent incongruence and tragedy of "uniting all editions of D&D" in a nutshell.

One person's arbitrary and illogical is another person's obvious and reasonable, and not enough, "Eh, not to my taste, but I can live with that" to smooth things over.