There has been plenty of D&D lore through the editions and much fiction (LotR) which would contradict the above, hence the halfling causes more of a concern than other topics. Halflings are also a playble race, unlike the Giant Eagle. It is more in your face that this 3 foot human, in 5e, cahttp://www.enworld.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?363-Character-Builds-amp-Optimizationn be as strong as the mightiest orc. It ain't right.
1) LotR is not D&D. Especially if you look at everything past 3.0.
2) There are no lightfoot halflings in LotR.
3) I mentioned this argument as the pixie fighter etc. started a cycle of "how tiny can it get until my suspension of disbelief has ended".
4) I get why this is a concern for some people, but I say that it is no issue for me. And I try to provide (even physical) reasons why.
Suspension of disbelieve.
A giant is completely unrealistic. A giant inside a 2 x 2 squares room with a tiny door and no food available isn't only unrealistic: it makes you think "this is wrong".
The same process explain nearly every other "realism" problem. It's not about realism: it's immersion.
With the same process you are using, we can justify things like recovering all your HP in 5 minutes or that all women wearing chainmail bikinis have the same AC than all men with complete plate armor. You can create reasons but it's stretching too much. We just don't buy it.
4) Yep, an ogre in a 2x2 room would be unrealistic. Yet it (and many other scenarios which make no logical sense to us) is a regular part of many "classic" dungeons. Dungeons which are claimed to be loved by many players and GMs (not by me, though. I'm not a fan of such dungeons.)
5) In 4e you could recover all your HP in 5 minutes. This game world and its metabolisms just worked that way. Is it realistic compared to our RL standards? No. Is it possible in a fictional game world? Yes! Especially when you already have trolls etc. with fast healing in your standard bestiary since 1e
6) Chain Mail Bikinis were afaik never part of official rules unless you count some artwork meant to titillate young men as canon rules. They are artistical interpretation, nothing more.
For me D&D at least back in the days up to 2nd maybe 3rd ed was always about a Group of individuals with different classes and/or races every one with their own strength and weakness who as a Group could overcome obstacles which they couldn´t overcome alone or as a Group of their own race / class. This is the principle in LOTR and it had evolved into D&D back that days. Back then you wanted to play a drow maybe because the drizzt was new that time maybe because the sexy looks maybe to rp the difficulty acting with ppl who saw a monster in you. If the DM would let you do that he would eventually Strip you of your magic resistance and cantrip Gimmicks but leave you with sunlight disadvantage at least for a while. Of course your racial +1 to +5 drow equip would turn to dust in the sunlight.
If you were in for something new the "evil" campaign the DM might leave you classed drow but all of the Group and with all the Gimmicks and adjusted Mobs and rp issues to compensate for your OP
With 3rd Edition came the urge everyone must be able to Play any race / class whatever. They still left all the Attribute modifiers and other Gimmicks but you had an XP malus to counter for imbalamce compared with Standard races.
In 4e which i did never Play PnP so i might be a bit wrong it was all fluff. 3 roles and different names for approx the same damage Output etc .
Today ppl want to make everything equal and politically correct even in D&D. In RL no Kid is the loser of a race anymore he is the tenth winner instead.
But D&D is a highly politically incorrect game as such (i am joking a bit here of course) you got prejudice run around and kill stuff to take their stuff in the Name of lawful good
It does the game no good if this leads to things like halfling warrior has to be as strong as the halforc warrior. It is totally ok usig RAW to do such things but ist diversity stupidity imho. You want to Play a halfling warrior? go for it here is the dex 20 Ko 20 halfling short sword expert. i bet he does as much damage as his half orc colleague (dpr another equality sh*** of These days, ok it helps to evaluate some combat abilities but it has nnothing to do with roleplay asides from statistics) and has as many hitpoints.
With that said in 5 E i had bigger concerns about the halflings possible 22 in dex which he would get for compensating for only 18 (ridiculous) str because that +1 in dex would affect ac important dex save attack roll and damge roll for ranged and Finesse weapons. And thats an awful lot which could imbalance things more than 18 str instaed of 20.
Don't know why you drag 1-3e Drow into all of this. I don't remember mentioning Drow, nor do I take a particular liking of them in "standard" D&D. Instead, I'd prefer my PHB races
To me, D&D is all about a group of heroes, mischiefs or villains doing stuff together. And yep, I agree on the part you described which I'd call collaborative Synergizing into something that's bigger than the sum of its parts. But, and maybe that's where our opinions differ, I place class way over race. Race to me is a background, a flavor, a cultural heritage which adds spice to your character. Class is where your "job" stems from, your calling, your place, ypur spot in the group. This is why I'd rather let people play whatever race they like. Because it is fun to see both the oddball and the well-played archetype.
And yes, balance is a whole different animal. And yes, I agree that a DEX based fighter is just as viable (if not more) than a STR based one.
I also don't get why so many people call freedom of opportunity "PC". To me, this argument almost screams like wanting to shoehorn certain people (races, genders...) into a narrow array of archetypical roles. But isn't it that in fiction, those who rise against all odds or who seem like unlikely to succeed are those characters who are most memorable? Why then would we wanr to deny our PC peers the opportunity to shine as such seeming oddballs?
