I don't have much faith that your account of history is an accurate one, let alone an unbiased one with regards to the aim of spuriously trying to assert an argument. Moreover, as stated before, none of this has much relevance to a fantasy race of Halflings.
Using my knowledge of history to try to win the argument yes, but spurious no. Besides, you've already proven to everyone that you are not going to give and are just keeping going to save face, so I'm playing to the crowd rather than arguing with you per se.
As for doubting my knowledge of history, don't worry, history majors are usually gainsayed when they tell people something about the middle ages that contradicts what they learned when their favourite sitcom characters went back to ye olde medieval times. But if you don't want to do rigorous historical research then there is a wiki for that, which pretty much has everything I said in the paragraph you are dismissing.
Infantry in the Middle Ages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for the comparing the Swiss or the English to the halflings, why wouldn't it be applicable? The swiss are one culture, the halflings one culture. It isn't like fantasy races have the cultural variation of human cultures. One race, one culture, is the general rule, because otherwise they just seem like short humans.
And again, why would a wizard spend any time in his apprenticeship to specialise in weapon fighting, purely on racial grounds? You say that only adventuring Halflings would be trained, yet there is no rational means of selection of who would be an adventurer or not.
While wizards use magic a lot, they still need to be skilled with a dagger, staff, sling and other basic weapons when their magic is exhausted or fails (such as a magic dead zone).
As well, I don't see why you insist on saying that every halfling NPC, including 80 year old grandmothers has halfling weapon training. These are rules for PC's, who are adventurers. If you want to use D&D for playing a non-adventuring grandmother, then you are playing such an outlier that needs house rules. These rules are for adventuring halfling PC's. Nobody is rolling up non-adventurers, so that is your selector.
Again, your account of historical societies is spurious- conscripted peasants were not trained as a warrior caste.
Really? You are going to deny the existence of the medieval peasant militia? Where the hell do you think infantry came from? Do you think they came from sowing dragon's teeth? How many professional soldiers do you think a manor could support?
No, there were feudal obligations from peasants and free landowners alike for military service. Given that those obligations existed, and were often called upon, you don't think they trained and drilled for that eventuality? Seriously? How dumb do they think they are?
Well considering both Tolkien's Hobbits and D&DNext Halflings are both explicitely stated as peaceful types who don't engage in warfare or conquest, and spend most of their time farming, eating, drinking mead and smoking weed - I think the implication of how they achieved 'peace' in their culture is pretty clear. It wasn't through a regime of martial training.
Yep, it was because Bilbo's great uncle Bullroarer Took in the midst of a battle between hobbits and goblins, knocked the head off the goblin king in one blow with a warclub, winning the battle and inventing golf in same stroke.
No it's just a clue that 'dog-piling' as an internet forum trait is alive and well, no matter what the point of debate is.
Yes, maybe it is the case that you are the only logical and sane voice in a cacophony of madness. But I'm saying you should maybe consider, just consider mind you, that you are mistaken before saying that everyone's arguments are weak or spurious.
I'm saying we don't need the power creep of including these martial bonuses in the first place, in the same way we don't need +1 bonuses to all Ability scores for Humans. Not only are these bonuses illogical in a cultural sense, but they don't actually enhance the sense of culture in these species in any case. They are a 'gamist' bonus - not a roleplaying one.
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.
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. In the end, I like the idea of halflings being good at knife fighting and slings, so I don't mind explaining it away with a halfling martial tradition involving slings and knives. You don't like the idea of halfling martial tradition because you want them to be helpless pacifists, so you don't like increased damage or the idea of a halfling martial tradition. But saying one is more or less realistic is where you start sounding silly.
