Why do Halflings get damage bonuses?

[TrippyHippy]

And in what part of this does it say they never need to defend those homes from invading kobolds, goblins, orcs and the like? Do they not have sheriffs or other militias to defend their homes? This isn't the Shire.

Given a dangerous environment, training with slings, daggers and the like is only sensible. Just as dwarves train with hammers and axes, and elves train with bows and swords.

The point is, contrary to what was argued before, Halflings are indeed described in the D&D rules pretty much like Tolkien Hobbits. And they are not described as a warlike race, and this gives no traction whatsoever to the notion that all Halflings are trained in any weapons, to the degree that they can have a damage advantage with these weapons. It's absurd to think that a Halfling bartender would be able to weild a shortsword with more damage potency than an experienced Human soldier.....

I still don't know that you understand the contradiction here.

You're complaining on the one hand that dwarves using unconventional weapons are at a relative disadvantage when they aren't using the archetypal dwarven weapons. It sounds a lot like a balance concern, to me. That is, a rapier-wielding dwarf is not balanced with an axe-wielding one, and you find this distasteful.

And on the other hand you're saying that halflings using weapons for their stature - weapons that they may well have been trained in from a young age - should be bad at all weapons because to do so otherwise is "pathetic" adherence to balance. And you find this distasteful, too.

I understand that your citation of contradiction isn't logical.

Halflings should be able to do the same damage with the same weapons as everybody else. A short sword is a short sword - and it's physical potency is determined by it's physical dimensions, beyond any amount of training.
The idea that a race of smaller people will generate a greater leverage to affect damage than somebody with twice their body mass is absurd. If the argument that they should be able to then just boils down to 'it's not fair!' for gaming 'balance' reasons, then this is simply pathetic.

If you want to play a Halfling, accept that they are a Halfling, and you will only be able to use certain weapons because of your physical size. There are other advantages instead - in sneaky, light-footed ways - play to your strengths if you want to see it in purely tactical terms. If you want to roleplay a halfling, accept what you are. If you don't like what a Halfling is, then roleplay something else.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The mathematical breakdown is irrelevant. The issue is that Halflings get bonuses to damage with selected weapons simply to create an artificial gaming 'balance'.

Why should, for example, a Halfling Wizard get to do d6 Damage with a dagger, when a Human Wizard only gets to roll D4? How is this fair? How is this realistic? How is this not ridiculous?

You probably don't want to start pulling at all the stray threads of "unrealistic" in D&D, unless you want to unravel the whole darn sweater.

 

[TrippyHippy]

You probably don't want to start pulling at all the stray threads of "unrealistic" in D&D, unless you want to unravel the whole darn sweater.

No - this issue is a simple thing to resolve, and doesn't pertain to any wider context. As stated before, the increased damage for select weapon/race combos is unnecessay. Just ditch them, along with Humans getting +1 on all stats. These are just dumb rules.

 

[ferratus]

I think you are thinking that increased damage is only due to superior strength. I can assure you TrippyHippy, that it only requires 3 inches of penetration to kill you, and that requires very little strength.

Halflings train with slings and daggers, and have master fighting techniques involving slings and daggers because they have to fight giants all the time. I mean you might as well get angry about the bonus damage that rangers get when fighting giants. That is pretty much the exact same rule as this, and makes about the same amount of sense.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I am amazed at the degree of nonsense people will argue in defense of the indefensible. To reiterate:

a) the notion that an entire race will be trained in using specific weapons, especially when described as a 'peaceful' race is absurd.
b) the notion that a race of people physically smaller than any other will collectively be able to inflict greater damage with specified weapons regardless of class or training is also absurd.
C) the knock on effects of including such racial abilities leads to other absurd rulings in the name of 'game balance'.

Racial based damage is a stinker of a rule, that causes far more problems than it's worth.

 

[slobo777]

Seeing that verisimiltude is basically a posh word for 'realism' this is a non argument. Halflings are diminuitive people of an established height and weight in the game. It kills verisimiltude to have them all have an ability that defies physical reality.

The two words do have a subtle distinction. You can have dragons that have a self-consistent "verisimilitude" that varies widely from game to game (or book to book), but there are very few attempts at "realism" regarding dragons.

The Halfling ability here that appears in the story (i.e.applies to "realism" or "verisimilitude") is the ability to be dangerous to other characters in melee when wielding a dagger or shortsword. This would be true irrespective of the dice hike.

The dice hike is basically saying "a halfling with a swortsword is just as dangerous an enemy as a human with a longsword". It doesn't say, or need to say, anything else.

If you want to shut down all possible backgrounds or fluff that would support that, because it offends your sense of reality for the game system, then no amount of presenting them or arguing them is going to change your mind.

In that case, your best bet for a harmonious game is to exclude the race from games you play, or get agreement around the table that the dice hike doesn't apply. That's because IMO in this part you are looking at one of the more "complete" parts of the game design, which has more consensus, and probably is not worth an official "module" from WotC to cater to you.

Of course, I am just extrapolating from other forum comments here, so would be fine with being proved wrong . . . there are other things I don't care about in 5E, but the gamist damage dice fixes for non-human with weapons is not one of them.

 

[Underman]

The PHB really needs a sidebar in the character creation rules that indicates that racial abilities represent the PCs/heroes specifically.

It is then up to the DM to decide if PC racial abilities are also reflective of the racial population at large.

That is, racial abilities are modular/optional by default. Racial abilities of PCs are not modular/optional by default.

A simple sidebar like that would go a long way, I think.

So now you have the halflings which culturally are proficient at slings and short sword, and halfling PCs which for whatever reason (luck, skill, etc.) elevate that proficiency to another level (average +1 damage). The gaming group can then sort what what regular halflings are like and other houserules on a campaign/setting basis.

 

[Yora]

I think they are trying to go a bit too overboard with races anyway.

The stats should be a reflection of the fluff. And when that fluff would be very well represented with +2 Con, -2 Cha, advantage to saves against poison, and low-light vision, than that's all they need.
Don't add more bonuses and penalties only for the sake of making the races appear more different.

 

[TrippyHippy]

The two words do have a subtle distinction. You can have dragons that have a self-consistent "verisimilitude" that varies widely from game to game (or book to book), but there are very few attempts at "realism" regarding dragons.

How about the realism of their size being reflected in the level of damage a Dragon can inflict?

The Halfling ability here that appears in the story (i.e.applies to "realism" or "verisimilitude") is the ability to be dangerous to other characters in melee when wielding a dagger or shortsword. This would be true irrespective of the dice hike.
The dice hike is basically saying "a halfling with a swortsword is just as dangerous an enemy as a human with a longsword". It doesn't say, or need to say, anything else.

And this notion is absurd. A long sword is a more dangerous weapon than a short sword by virtue of it's reach and leverage. This is essentially as it is defined in the game already, by it having different dice in the first place. The concept that a halfling would be able to inflict more equivelant damage with a short sword because they are proportionally the same size as a human to a long sword is akin to arguing that a doormouse would be able to inflict the same amount of damage with a blade of grass.

If you want to shut down all possible backgrounds or fluff that would support that, because it offends your sense of reality for the game system, then no amount of presenting them or arguing them is going to change your mind.
In that case, your best bet for a harmonious game is to exclude the race from games you play, or get agreement around the table that the dice hike doesn't apply. That's because IMO in this part you are looking at one of the more "complete" parts of the game design, which has more consensus, and probably is not worth an official "module" from WotC to cater to you.

This is literally an ad hominem. I remind you that this is a playtest document I am responding to, and as a signed up playtester it is part of the deal for myself to be critical of what I regard are dumb rules. And this is a very dumb rule!Stick to the argument, and less of the "stop complaining, you're an insignificant minority' nonsense.

Of course, I am just extrapolating from other forum comments here, so would be fine with being proved wrong . . . there are other things I don't care about in 5E, but the gamist damage dice fixes for non-human with weapons is not one of them.

Bully for you, but 'I'm all right Jack' isn't an argument that addresses the points I've raised.

 

[Mattachine]

How about the realism of their size being reflected in the level of damage a Dragon can inflict?


And this notion is absurd. A long sword is a more dangerous weapon than a short sword by virtue of it's reach and leverage. This is essentially as it is defined in the game already, by it having different dice in the first place. The concept that a halfling would be able to inflict more equivelant damage with a short sword because they are proportionally the same size as a human to a long sword is akin to arguing that a doormouse would be able to inflict the same amount of damage with a blade of grass.

For me, this line of reasoning makes it unreasonable for a human fighter to face down a 30' long dragon with a longsword.