Why do Halflings get damage bonuses?

[TrippyHippy]

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.

No I haven't. I've just pointed out a retarded ruling that exists in a playtest document. There is no greater extrapolation or meaning that needs to be derived from that point. It's just that rule is a stinker.

 

[FireLance]

No I haven't. I've just pointed out a retarded ruling that exists in a playtest document. There is no greater extrapolation or meaning that needs to be derived from that point. It's just that rule is a stinker.

I rest my case.

 

[ferratus]

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.

Hah! Well I'd solve the problem by removing different damage rolls on weapons altogether, and go back to having all weapons do 1d6 damage like in OD&D. Why? Because weapons are designed for killing and most weapons are very good at it. You only need 3 inches of steel to kill a person, so there is no reason to assume that a dagger is less likely to kill an unarmed commoner with a single blow than a greatsword. There, no need to make a halfling do more or less damage than a human based on the size of the weapon.

But people like having weapons do varying damage, and people like halflings as fighters, rogues and clerics. So this is the fix, and it is a fix that works for pretty much everybody but you.

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.

They don't. First of all, the halfling bartender and midwife are not adventurers. These stats don't represent bartenders, midwives, village idiots, grandmothers, and the unborn. Plus, fighters are far better at using short swords than any other class, as Obryn pointed out.

As for halflings being better than other races in the same class with daggers, why is a dwarf better at identifying stonework than a human with the stone mason background? Why would all dwarves be trained in identifying stonework, even if they and their parents are goatherds? I makes just as much and just as little sense as halflings being slightly better at daggers and slings than humans. It is just a useful shorthand to give halflings and dwarves a bit of cultural flavour.

If you examine every single rule in D&D with the standard of realism you are expecting with this rule, you will find out that most of it doesn't pass the test of absolute plausibility. If you think it does, you've been playing D&D too long, and doing everything else in the world too little.

It's not going to stop me saying my peace in a playtest situation though.

No, no say your peace. But don't expect people to agree with you, and expect them to be annoyed when you insult them.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Enjoy your rest.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Hah! Well I'd solve the problem by removing different damage rolls on weapons altogether, and go back to having all weapons do 1d6 damage like in OD&D. Why? Because weapons are designed for killing and most weapons are very good at it. You only need 3 inches of steel to kill a person, so there is no reason to assume that a dagger is less likely to kill an unarmed commoner with a single blow than a greatsword. There, no need to make a halfling do more or less damage than a human based on the size of the weapon.

But people like having weapons do varying damage, and people like halflings as fighters, rogues and clerics. So this is the fix, and it is a fix that works for pretty much everybody but you.

Trying to discredit myself as a 'lone view' is an ad hominem, again, and this is not a 'fix' that is needed, for any problem that hasn't already been created by other arbitrary rules.

I am not suggesting that we should remove varying damage for weapons, just that the concept of racial training is an idiotic one. There isn't a problem to fix if you just accept that Halflings can indeed be Fighters, Rogues and Clerics as they wish.

Of course, you could then add a rule stating that Halflings can only wield small weapons; you could then add another rule that has an entire race arbitrarily trained in particular weapons to offset the 'issues' of the first rule. Why stop there? Or....you could just stop adding rules that ultimately lead to bizzare situations, and/or restrictions. It's no solution to keep digging holes.

If, on the other hand you just set rules for weapon use being based upon strength scores and removed all notion of racial limitations in weapon use, then the only restriction becomes aesthetics. In my view, a 16 Strength Halfling should be able to weild a longsword with effect - it's just they won't look all that normal. You don't have to create any more rules at all.

They don't. First of all, the halfling bartender and midwife are not adventurers. These stats don't represent bartenders, midwives, village idiots, grandmothers, and the unborn. Plus, fighters are far better at using short swords than any other class, as Obryn pointed out.

The rules do not state that only halfling adventurers get weapon training - they just say 'Racial Training' (applying to everybody in that race) - and how would anybody know which Halfling children would be singled out as future adventurers in order to segregate them for training? The background lists artisans and the like - how would these be obvious candidates for adventuring? Why arbitrarily train one segment of a population in 'racial weapon use? The argument you are using doesn't make sense.

As for halflings being better than other races in the same class with daggers, why is a dwarf better at identifying stonework than a human with the stone mason background? Why would all dwarves be trained in identifying stonework, even if they and their parents are goatherds? I makes just as much and just as little sense as halflings being slightly better at daggers and slings than humans. It is just a useful shorthand to give halflings and dwarves a bit of cultural flavour.

Because the notion of a dwarven stereotype being good at stonework is a well established archetype of the fantasy genre, whereas the notion that Halflings can inflict more damage with a weapon than somebody twice their size is not. Having arbitrary rules for damage is not adding 'cultural flavour' either.

If you examine every single rule in D&D with the standard of realism you are expecting with this rule, you will find out that most of it doesn't pass the test of absolute plausibility. If you think it does, you've been playing D&D too long, and doing everything else in the world too little

I don't accept that, and in any case I am not examining every single rule. I'm examining this one, which stinks.

No, no say your peace. But don't expect people to agree with you, and expect them to be annoyed when you insult them.

I will say my peace, and I am not insulting anybody by standing my ground - whether they like it or not.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

That reasoning does not always work because without some kind of guidelines even the NPCs and random mooks can "do what they want to do" as the default.

I want to play a young Robin Hood type, on a career path to become the best archer in all the Isles? Well, every Dex build uses a bow just exactly as well as my PC. It is "let's pretend" where no one else can be expected to pretend with me.

"Feats" or some kind of equivalent are a coin for player choice demonstrating PC dedication. One might argue that 3e had too much of a good thing here, but the basic case for feat is extremely strong.

 

[slobo777]

An 'ad hominem' is an attempt to undermine or discredit the person making the argument, as opposed to addressing the issues raised in the argument itself. That is what I learned when studying philosphy at University, by the way, and that is precisely what some posters have tried to do in this thread.

Wikipedia is not bad on academic subjects such as philospophy, maths, etymology:

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.

--

However, the particular name of the thing is probably irrelevent.

Edit: For the record, saying that a particular opinion is a minority one, thus can be discounted, has a different name AFAIK, but I don't recall it. It's still a recognised fallacy. However, most of the alleged "ad hominem" accusations here are off-target, posters are accepting the problem phrased in the OP, and after trying to present their own answers, are suggesting work-around fixes that might work for you and allow you to play the game. The assumption being that something that blocks a poster here from playing a game that they like is worth some creative thinking to solve.

--

You are complaining that posters are not addressing your issue, but are instead pointing out you have options to ignore your problem with the Halfling racial weapon die upgrade.

The reason for this is because the underlying issue is - in the game (I'm not referring to your concerns, which are real of course) - a complete and utter fiction. Hit points are so far from capturing the essence of damage and injury that there is no possible logical, real or verisimilude-based argument that cannot have its foundations cut out from under it. Add to that your dislike of any "gamist" answer, and there is literally no reasoned argument that is going to work for or against the hobbit damage.

The Halfling damage dice for preferred weapons is pure gamist. It can be supported by numerous plausible game-world fictions. If you find them lacking, you are left with just the pure gamist side, and if that's still bad for you, you can complain to the game designers and/or houserule if it ever crops up in your own games.

When I posted that you'll probably have to live with house-ruling it, that's a prediction of how things will pan out, not an instruction to not bother giving feedback. By all means give your feedback on the playtest, it's what it is for. There could well be a silent majority, whom I don't usually encounter, or unaware of this thread, all saying the same as you. In which case WotC would be well advised to find another way to make Halflings balanced characters. WotC also have room to re-define what "balanced" means, because there plenty of ways to cut that, too - I think there's a few other threads for that

 

[Libramarian]

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.

I find it kind of funny. I find it kind of sad.

I find it really, really, really, really, bad.

That's how that song goes right?

I also dislike this hobbit rule. But not really out of realism I don't think. I find it displeasing aesthetically to mess with weapon damage by changing the die type. And I find it sort of contrived and gamey and overly symmetrical to give the halfings racial weapons training just because the elves and dwarves have it. Again not really out of realism, just because I would have liked that variety and texture.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Wikipedia is not bad on academic subjects such as philospophy, maths, etymology:

Thank you for quoting Wikipedia to me. It is most edifying, and clearly indicates a significant and time consuming amount of study on the matter.....

The Halfling damage dice for preferred weapons is pure gamist.

Absolutely it is.

It can be supported by numerous plausible game-world fictions.

Except they are not plausible at all.

By all means give your feedback on the playtest, it's what it is for.

Which is what I am doing.

There could well be a silent majority, whom I don't usually encounter, or unaware of this thread, all saying the same as you. In which case WotC would be well advised to find another way to make Halflings balanced characters.

Well this is conjecture, but all i can reasonably go on is what I think and feel about what I read and play in the playtest. My feeling is that rule is an absolute stinker, for all the reasons outlined before.

WotC also have room to re-define what "balanced" means, because there plenty of ways to cut that, too - I think there's a few other threads for that

To be honest, after the experience of posting in this thread, the less I hear of the term 'balance' in reference to D&D in the future, the happier I will be.

 

[slobo777]

I also dislike this hobbit rule. But not really out of realism I don't think. I find it displeasing aesthetically to mess with weapon damage by changing the die type. And I find it sort of contrived and gamey and overly symmetrical to give the halfings racial weapons training just because the elves and dwarves have it. Again not really out of realism, just because I would have liked that variety and texture.

I can buy that. However, I don't think it's "symmetry".

I think instead it shows the foundations in D&D Next are weak in places, there isn't much room for rules with a "feel" of difference, except the extended mechanics baked into class features.

In short, the game components allowed to add significant mechanics on top of the core are the classes, and feats. Races and backgrounds have to earn their keep by building directly on top of core. They have to "tweak" existing concepts of checks, hit dice, advantage/disadvantage etc. Edit: Looking through the specialities, some (like the Necromancer) come with their own pages of rules, so are obviously allowed by the design team to do this. I don't expect to see that happen to player races though.

So Halflings end up with the damage die hike to keep race design simple (it also avoids some trap options or must-have-for-build feats).

Personally, I'd have given +1 to hit for the thematic weapons for Halflings instead, just to alter the feel a little.