Why do Halflings get damage bonuses?

[TrippyHippy]

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

No it's not. The skill involved in slaying a dragon does not complicate the physical reality of the maximium damage inflicted by a long sword. The equivalent you are arguing for would have the longsword increase it's damage tenfold vs the Dragon. Another absurd notion.

 

[ferratus]

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

Because it isn't indefensible that's why.

a) the notion that an entire race will be trained in using specific weapons, especially when described as a 'peaceful' race is absurd.

It isn't an entire race, it is the members of the adventuring class of that race, who spend a good deal of their time killing and pillaging... you know for goodness (but mostly for XP).

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.

A slight bonus regardless of class. But a halfling wizard is still going to not be as good with a dagger as a fighter or rogue, so there you have the variance in ability.

As for a halfling being better at using daggers generally than a human wizard, no it doesn't bother me. In medieval societies having the entire adult male population being trained in the use of a particular weapon was not uncommon. At its most extreme it was mandatory. In 1252 for example the 'Assize of Arms' ensured that all Englishmen were ordered, by law, that every man between the age of 15 to 60 years old should equip themselves with a bow and arrows. The Plantagenet King Edward III took this further and decreed the Archery Law in 1363 which commanded the obligatory practice of archery on Sundays and holidays.

So in a world when your village might be attacked by a random encounter at any moment, it only make sense that the entire class of adventuring halflings (mostly dextrous, mostly male, mostly young) would have training in the sword and sling. Those trained men would also come in handy when the human king wants a levy of slingers from your villages to fulfill your feudal obligations as well.

C) the knock on effects of including such racial abilities leads to other absurd rulings in the name of 'game balance'.

We've explained over and over why it isn't unreasonable, and why it hasn't been unreasonable since halflings first showed up in the game to have a bonus to attack and/or damage with their favoured weapons. Heck, even Tolkien mentions in his prologue to the Lord of the Rings concerning hobbits, that hobbits are adept with slings and throwing stones, which is where this whole bonus comes from. The grand old professor understood that a particular people or region can have a martial culture based around a particular weapon.

 

[Prickly]

Slightly unrelated but I think it would be nice for each race that gets a weapon damage bonus would get the option of another ability instead.

It would go along way for settings that have very different racial flavour and would give the option of removing them nicely for those that do not like them.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

1) As I pointed out in another thread, these cultural abilities should be put into 'stereotypical and/or raised by X' backgrounds along with some appropriate skills.

2) Halflings do 1d8 damage with shortswords. Shortswords are finessable weapons. Therefore Halflings are the only race for whom it is currently reasonable to take Two-Weapon Fighting.

 

[slobo777]

2) Halflings do 1d8 damage with shortswords. Shortswords are finessable weapons. Therefore Halflings are the only race for whom it is currently reasonable to take Two-Weapon Fighting.

Now that is a reasonable objection, in my world, to the race bonus. Unless there is some way around it for other TWF character concepts, it creates a world where only Halfling PCs run around using fantasy TWF styles. Which is silly, because it is visible in the game world - in a way that hit points of damage, especially the *potential* difference between a 1d6 and 1d8 rolled, are not the majority of the time.

Edit: Of course this sets of one contentious bit of the playtest doc against another, so plenty of resolutions involve adjusting TWF (or access to it) and keeping the design of rcial weapon stereotypes.

 

[ferratus]

1) As I pointed out in another thread, these cultural abilities should be put into 'stereotypical and/or raised by X' backgrounds along with some appropriate skills.

Then I have to choose between my racial background and other more interesting backgrounds. If I am a halfling fighter and acolyte of Yondolla, I still want to be good at slings and thrown stones like Tolkien described in the prologue to Lord of the Rings.

Most halflings are going to be raised in halfling culture, and the outliers can always swap a particular cultural ability for a feat.

2) Halflings do 1d8 damage with shortswords. Shortswords are finessable weapons. Therefore Halflings are the only race for whom it is currently reasonable to take Two-Weapon Fighting.

Well, that's a separate issue. First off, why is a short sword a finesse weapon? It is a brutal thrusting weapon of war, such as the roman gladius, light but very direct in its application. The fact that it has such associations with rogues in D&D is silly, and probably just a result of people trying to get higher damage yet claim that a short sword is "concealable" (which it isn't).

Second, I don't mind two weapon fighters getting 1d8/1d8, but a shield should give you +4 AC to compensate and twohanded weapons should do 2d8. If you aren't willing to give that much AC or two-handed damage, the damage of two weapon fighting should be reduced as well.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

[MENTION=55966]ferratus[/MENTION]

You may have missed the TWF math thread - they don't get d8/d8, they get half that on each, and in fact can only achieve d6/d6 unless they are a halfling. They are lining things up as you suggest, but at lower numbers.

 

[slobo777]

1) As I pointed out in another thread, these cultural abilities should be put into 'stereotypical and/or raised by X' backgrounds along with some appropriate skills.

It's how 4E generally solved this (e.g. Dwarven Weapon Training feat). Where it didn't (e.g. rcial built-in weapon proficiencies) it was criticised.

I think the current problem there for the design team is that the backgrounds and specialities are quite cut down, simplified on purpose, and don't seem to have room for racial links (at least at the amount of completeness in the playtest). There is no suggestion yet that you would want to pick and mix feats, and nowhere for one-off "re-balancing" feats for common FRP concepts to be listed. So the only place to put racially-linked bonuses currently is in the race.

That could change, although I'm not a fan of "re-balancing" feats, because IME they often pop up in optimisation (cf Dwarven Weapon Training in 4E once Dwarves finally got to choose a Strength bonus anyway).

 

[ferratus]

There is no suggestion yet that you would want to pick and mix feats, and nowhere for one-off "re-balancing" feats for common FRP concepts to be listed. So the only place to put racially-linked bonuses currently is in the race.

That's where it is going to stay as well, because a significant portion of the D&D audience will not be bothering with feats or specialities, and catering to them is a design goal of D&D Next. I doubt players such as Lanefan or thedungeondelver (if they play 5e) are going to bother with them, because it doesn't match their 1e playstyle. You can't use feats as a common rules assumption in 5e for that reason.

I'm not exactly sure if I'll bother with feats myself. Feats get in the way of quick character generation and leveling up during the middle of the session. They also seem to be all too often there to undo a needlessly limiting rule. For example, you need a feat to fight with two weapons... but why not just let people fight with two weapons, and not make twf a particularly overpowering fighting style?

I understand that feats are useful for making characters feel unique, but the other side should realize that people who don't use feats usually make their player characters feel special by simply allowing player characters to do what they want to do. No feats required.

 

[Scribble]

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 why I've always hated the idea of modeling a game based on what seems "real."

It's filled with the same types of issues that crop up with pseudoscience. One guy's current definition of what's most real might be vastly different then what some other guy believes, and arguments abound!

What's even better is when common understandings of things change over time, so what once seemed like a very "realistic" rule now seems absurd.

The idea that a longsword is a more dangerous weapon simply because it's longer is just one example of this...


I get it- you don't like the rule. But you can't argue it's objectively bad because it doesn't jive with your current notion of reality.

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.

That's not actually what he said; you seem to be reading into it.