D&D General why do we have halflings and gnomes?

[tetrasodium]

The there are a couple of issues here:

It is clear that you have certain a priori assumptions about how a D&D world should work. The author of that text is working from a different set of a priori assumptions about how a D&D world works. Therefore you are quite correct, from your point of view it does not make sense.

This also applies to other races. For example, you have already mentioned how you fixed dwarves to explain their food supply.

There is a specific issue with halflings though - Tolkien intellectual property. What WotC is allowed to say about halflings is incomplete, because they cannot include content from Tolkien. It is likely that those people who like halflings are using knowledge from Tolkien to "fill in the blanks".

Why do you seem to be talking about this game?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Note that Luke runs to his car, and grabs a RIFLE. Showing that, again, the Moisture Farmers did have weapons. Because they lived in a dangerous world. A standard that I am applying, and that halflings specifically break.

No. This is wrong. Halflings have weapons. Halfling archers are in Tolkien. Ergo WotC cannot mention them. However, if you look at halflings where they appear in adventures, they are armed.

It's also wrong to assume that the places halflings live are as dangerous as Tatooine. I've already mentioned that in Cormyr you need a licence to carry a weapon. I.e. no one has them unless they are a knight or licenced adventurer. This means Cormyr is SAFE. There are no tuskan raiders in Cormyr.

 

[Oofta]

The default statblock has a club, but using that to claim that is all they can use would be like saying that all hobgoblins use Longswords and all orcs use Greataxes. Doesn't make sense


Also, note that you immediately jumped to the Monster Manual. Because the lore does not exist on humans only using sticks and rocks to defend their villages from monsters like trolls and ogres. Which is what I was asking about, and the lack of that lore is quite telling.

As we keep trying to tell you, there is no lore that says halflings use only sticks and stones. I'm sure they'll use whatever weapons they have available.

They might use sticks and stones in some cases to drive off monsters. They are also talking about scenarios where these kind of attacks can be talked about for generations. Since halflings live to be 150, that's once a century at most.

In any case they might also use weapons. There might be an NPC halfling with a different categorization from the MM, anywhere from ArchDruid to Veteran which can be of any humanoid race; there isn't a "no halfling" clause.

But please. Show where it says halflings never use weapons. Show where it says what weapons human commoners (and only human commoners) use.

 

[turnip_farmer]

No. This is wrong. Halflings have weapons. Halfling archers are in Tolkien. Ergo WotC cannot mention them.

That's not how trademarks work. Games Workshop never had a problem describing halflings as skilled archers.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Which is a problem since DnD is not Middle Earth. It is far more dangerous in many respects.

No, the Forgotten Realms is not more dangerous than Middle Earth, with it's trolls wandering near the road, killer wolves and goblin invasions. And Tolkien's hobbits are capable of defending themselves, contributing archers to national armies, and are protected (to a degree) by rangers. Just as I would expect in the Forgotten Realms.

Also, Tolkien estate has Hobbits. They don't have a trademark on "small folk" by this point unless they are going to rip directly out of tolkien's world (which they don't do for humans, elves or dwarves) then there is no reason to leave blanks that you have to read Tolkien to fill. They can just fill the blanks

The lore in Tolkien on hobbits is far more extensive than what is written for elves and dwarves. The defence "but halflings are not the same as hobbits" does not hold if a lawyer can point to great chunks of similar text describing each. Which happened in 1st edition, leading to much of the halfling lore from the 1st version of the 1st edition AD&D core rule books being dropped in the second version of the 1st edition AD&D core rulebooks.

 

[Maxperson]

I quoted the entire thing.

It said "swatting the enemy with sticks on all sides." That is not how you would describe "attacking them from all sides" or even "hitting them from all sides with whatever weapons are available." They are specifically swatting (v) with sticks Or, how about this one, named for fighting trolls, "where the rest of the group can hurl stones at it" Note that it doesn't say "hurl stones, axes and spears at it" or "hurl weapons at it" or "hurl whatever is available at it"

So you don't have anything but the holy ritual where it describes the tactics used. You could have just said that. Those tactics can be used with axes when the real thing happens.

And yet you want to argue that the book doesn't says that they are swatting with sticks and hurling stones because you can attack and throw other weapons.

That's another Strawman from you. I didn't say that the book didn't say swatting with sticks and hurling stones. I said that that the holy rite says sticks and stones, and it is a holy rite as it is listed under the goddess and not in Serious Business portion where it talks about real defense. Then I said that those tactics practiced in the rite with sticks and stones can be used with axes and spears, because you know, they're only tactics.

 

[Maxperson]

You know, I would be fine if people wanted to argue that they use different versions of the same tactics.

The problem is, that to say they use a different version we have to acknowledge the original version. And no one is willing to acknowledge that the original version even exists.

That's an outright falsehood. I've said over and over again that the holy rite uses that version. That's a direct acknowledgement that during the holy rite, they use that version of the tactics. Then I argued that there's nothing in the lore saying that outside of the holy rite that they use that version and that the tactics can be used with spears and axes that the Halflings have.

 

[Gammadoodler]

You know, I would be fine if people wanted to argue that they use different versions of the same tactics.

The problem is, that to say they use a different version we have to acknowledge the original version. And no one is willing to acknowledge that the original version even exists.

I guess I don't entirely understand what acknowledgement you need.

If I'm reading it right, their Deity of Defense has some preferred tactics that the lore lists, which includes the use of sticks and stones. I can acknowledge that.

Has anything changed as a result of this acknowledgement?

Then it appears they practice and employ versions of these tactics which, I surmise, may or may not employ sticks and stones depending on the version. Which would seem to get us to, they use whatever weapons, sticks stones or otherwise, the DM says they use, but typically employ these specific tactics.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But humans exist! And they do commoner and agrarian stuff too.

How are halflings more human than humans?

Now I am all confused. Are you saying that halflings exist just to have humans who can pretend that their D&D world isn't a D&D world? Isn't that outright saying they don't match the setting?

The humans as presented in D&D are a lot like the ones presented in LoTR. They aren't us so much as they are mythic figures of destiny; ambitious and infinitely adaptable at a moment's notice. The greatest heroes and the worst villains. Which is fine, but it's nice to have actual people too. People who jus want to live their lives and be happy and need to be roused to heroism rather than always launching headlong at the call.

That's not a mismatch of the setting, it's adding back something that was lost when all humans became Arnold when sometimes you want to play Bruce Willis.

They are more realistic as the halflings are changed to math the tone and realities of the new setting.

Jungle cannibals don't really match the dying desert world setting. They're really just there to make DS more Conan. And then the metaplot... arg.

And both normal and afflicted kender were largely (and I'd say correctly) seen as both defining and damning features of DL.

I will grant you that being nebulously awful was totally on brand for the BoVD.

This is why I like 3e and 4e halflings. They still have that sense of optimistic and friendship but they heardstories of orcs invading baronies and gnolls killing/eating/sacrificing all the members of a town and dragons with a cult of kobolds. So they have organizations of warriors and push at least some halflings into diplomatic, economic, and militaristic fields.

Has any of that changed in 5e? And I ask this knowing that in a second there's a big reveal that I feel like makes all the pieces fall into place...

I see joke halflings a lot. Mosting because many players, especially back in the day, have halflings be a lot more common than gnomes and half orcs as NPCs and many DMs/games were limited to the 4 core races.

Look at some of the old D&D clones. Look a some of the OSR games. Halflings art is often stupid looking. Halfling stats are often weakest. Halfling lore is often completely disconnected from the rest of the world.

Ooooh. This is an old school gamer thing.

I honestly know nothing about OSR culture and all that. I feel like we could have saved a billion pages if you'd just said OSR Halflings because that's not how halflings have been for like decades, dude. 5e art aside, they're not really jokes. They're in fact the icons of the only class that's balanced and playable across all three of the most recent editions. I mean, maybe Tabaxi might supplant them at some point, but that's because the internet loves cats.

But to a lot of D&D fans, halflings are sucky and silly. And they push the idea of silly weak halflings.

You can see it in alot of the discussions on TCOE and the new UA. "No. No floating racial ASIs. None of this freedom. You powergamers want to kill the lore. Halflings are supposed to be agile country bumpkins why can't fight and die in traps! You hire 4 halfling hirelings to enter the dungeon and you leave with one!"

I don't think that howling and gnashing of teeth ever called halflings 'silly'. It's more about demanding that the muscly races always be stronger than halflings because... BECAUSE. But that whole thing is an issue with how D&D thinks strength is the primary component in being a good melee fighter.

 

[Minigiant]

The humans as presented in D&D are a lot like the ones presented in LoTR. They aren't us so much as they are mythic figures of destiny; ambitious and infinitely adaptable at a moment's notice. The greatest heroes and the worst villains. Which is fine, but it's nice to have actual people too. People who jus want to live their lives and be happy and need to be roused to heroism rather than always launching headlong at the call.

That's not a mismatch of the setting, it's adding back something that was lost when all humans became Arnold when sometimes you want to play Bruce Willis.

I think this is the core of the differences in our perceptions.

You see humans as superhumans and halflings as humans.

I see humans as humans and halflings as plucky but short friends.

Has any of that changed in 5e? And I ask this knowing that in a second there's a big reveal that I feel like makes all the pieces fall into place...

The tone, imagery, and foci of halflings reverted to it's pre3e form. Where the base halfling was a background hobbit with enough paint on it to not be sued.

The acrobatics, martial, and diplomatic aspects were heavily deemphasized and the homebody, silly, and rustic aspects put far in the foreground.

Ooooh. This is an old school gamer thing.

I honestly know nothing about OSR culture and all that. I feel like we could have saved a billion pages if you'd just said OSR Halflings because that's not how halflings have been for like decades, dude. 5e art aside, they're not really jokes. They're in fact the icons of the only class that's balanced and playable across all three of the most recent editions. I mean, maybe Tabaxi might supplant them at some point, but that's because the internet loves cats

Yeah they are iconic rogues but the old heads insist on so many nerfs that humans and elves do it better.

And since that generation of fans dominated DMing to a long time, they pinned halflings in the silly box for a long time.

And the high speed chase away from 4e removed a lot of progress on the halfling race.

don't think that howling and gnashing of teeth ever called halflings 'silly'. It's more about demanding that the muscly races always be stronger than halflings because... BECAUSE. But that whole thing is an issue with how D&D thinks strength is the primary component in being a good melee fighter.

It's that because. Many of the people complaining about halflings being stronger than minotaurs don't even allow minotaur PCs.

It's all about locking races into boxes and punishing them for stepping outside. If you take away weapons from short races, remove dex to melee damage, limit magic to certain races, cap Strength based on race, limit backgrounds by race, put severe penalties in combat based on size, weaken and limit sneak attack...

you end up with jokey halflings.