I hadn't realized they'd posted so many between that post and mine, sorry. It's the one that went: "I wish people had the same restraint about Dwarves and mining and Elves and woodsy stuff." Or, if you can assume that dwarfs do the best mining and elves do the best woodsy stuff (or arcane stuff), then you can assume that halflings do the best cooking and/or farming.
Ah, okay.
See, there is a small problem with that assertion. Mostly to do with Dwarves and mining. See, dwarves aren't the only miners. I'll ignore humans, but Kobolds, Goblins, and Gnomes (Rock and Deep) are also all noted as being miners. But Dwarves and Duergar (which are still just dwarves) are noted as being the best miners. They are a standard setter.
On the other end you have elves and "woodsy stuff". And frankly... I'm not sure I would say elves are the best at "woodsy" stuff. Wood Elves are definitely amazing in a forest, their ability to hide is phenomenal and they make the forests their home... but Firbolgs and Forest Gnomes might be their better in some ways. They can speak directly to the animals and even the plants of the forest. Elves can't do that. Species like Tabaxi, Grung, and Shifters are also depicted at home in jungle and forest environments. Heck, same with Goblins, I've seen a lot of depictions of Goblins being incredibly adept at living in Jungles and taming the beasts therein.
So, you are right that I should apply the same standards. Where you are wrong is that you think I am not. Dwarves are the best miners, and we've been told that, and it is reinforced consistently. Elves are good at "woodsy stuff" but there is a really strong argument that they aren't the best at it, and high elves have nothing to make them "woodsy" at all. So, it is an element of them, but I wouldn't say they are the best. Halflings cook and farm... but so do a lot of other races, and there is no indication that halflings do it better than anyone else.
I've literally never seen that happen. Sure, whole games can go by without a 1, but I've never seen anyone never roll a 1 (or whatever the worst number is for the game in question). Even the absolute luckiest guy I ever knew, the guy I watched roll for stats with other people's dice and come up with multiple 18s in a row and who managed to draw all face cards and/or spades when making a Deadlands character, rolled crit fails once in a while.
It is what it is. Again, maybe they do roll a 1 at some point in their lives, but does it happen during the single year that they are playing a halfling in a single game? Don't know. I've seen very few halfling players and I think I've seen the lucky trait come up... twice?
1 in 20, or 5% of the time, is not that rare.
Still decently rare. And then you have to account for things like the prominence of the help action for skill checks, and the fact that even if they roll a 1, if they then fail the same anyways, the ability had no effect. So, I'd say you are easily looking at the ability being useful between 2% and 3% of the time.
That's pretty rare. It could be a single roll for an entire campaign.
There's more to being a halfling than just luck and bravery. Also, I gave you several suggestions as to how to use luck in a non-dice-oriented way. If the halfling was raised in a traditional halfling way, then involve something like that, where knowledge of halfling customs and traditions come in handy. (Of course, that would require you to acknowledge halflings have customs and traditions.) Or have them encounter an NPC who prefers halflings for one reason or another (maybe they're also a halfling, maybe they prefer halfling friendliness or forthrightness to the duplicitous or suspiciousness of other races, maybe they're a halfling-eating monster in disguise). In this case, that halfling PC would be able to shine and that would probably be a lot more fun for that player than just having them use one of their traits.
In one of my games, I'm playing a tiefling. Resistant to fire damage. I've been hit by fire damage exactly twice during the game, and we've been playing it for quite some time now. (Perhaps amusingly, one of those times was when I was trying to disarm a magical trap and rolled a 1. Being a halfling could have come in handy then!) Lots of radiant and necrotic damage, lots of weapon damage, almost no fire damage. Also, my character is a Levestus tiefling--in case you don't remember, this is the type with all the ice-based powers. She gets the ray of frost cantrip... but since I'm playing a swashbuckler rogue by class and professional duelist by career choice, and therefore mostly do 1v1 melee fighting, she has also used that cantrip twice, maybe three times, and once it was to try to put out a fire (not the one from the trap).
So, the fire resistance and cantrip have come into play less than 5% of the time. Does that make these traits useless? Does that make my character boring, because two of her traits have barely been used? No, it doesn't. This character is hella fun to play. And the DM is a good DM. He doesn't need to play to my race to have my character or the game be enjoyable.
Luck is one of the most defining features of the halfling. Is it the only feauture of halflings? I won't say it is, but it is supposed to be important. They highlight it repeatedly. Halflings are lucky. Halflings are lucky.
And to help portray that luck I should... not do anything. Ignore it. Find other traits to highlight. And yet, when I first mentioned that I had trouble making halfling luck show up in the game and matter, you berated me for being a terrible GM? Don't I understand even the most basic and simple things?
And yet, every time you give advice on how to do it... it is either foisting it off to be the player's problem, or something that I considered, but rejected because it either felt too forced, or not enough for something that is supposed to be so defining.
Amusingly, I also just made a Levisutus Tiefling, Artificer though. Only been a single session of the game, but that infernal magic has been front and center, almost more than my artificing. I also took Infernal constitution (DM is a pathfinder guy, so he let us have a free lv 1 feat) and I have resistance to fire, cold and poison. The resistances haven't come up directly yet (single session) but it was pretty easy for us to say that my ability to resist extreme temperatures and toxic substances played into my ability to artifice. If the DM wanted to help me show my fire resistance, then it is as easy as putting something on fire that one of us has to get. Which, is made even easier since one of my fellow players decided to be a Wildfire Druid, and there is a whole thing invovling a slash and burn plot that I could see playing into my character's strengths.
Part of why it coming up rarely is worse for lucky though, is because it is random. Fire Resistance applies every single time I am exposed to fire. But lucky activates based on a die roll. Meaning it is just as likely that lucky us going to proc and save a character from death by a trap as it is to proc and make sure they don't insult the waitress and have them spit in their drink. Fire Resistance is always going to come up to make a dangerous situation less dangerous. Lucky could come up to make an unimportant roll the only time your ability ever activates.
If you have a player who doesn't roleplay their racial traits, that's on them, not the race. Also, why do you demand halflings be racial stereotypes?
Why is it so hard for you to understand that it's up to the player to roleplay their own character?
Literally the player's only purpose in the game is to play their own character!
This isn't hoping the player "does the work for you." This is hoping the player actually chooses to roleplay their character. When you are playing, do you except the DM to dictate all your emotions to you?
Then those things aren't important to to that player, and there's no reason for you to keep trying to emphasize them. Instead, emphasize things that are important to that player. Don't try to force them to play something they don't want to.
Does the player need to feel like their character is supernaturally lucky? If you have three months of gaming and nobody tries to charm the elf, does that make that trait useless or make the elf's player have less of a good time?
I few things to hash out here.
1) Being superstitious =/= being lucky. A player could certain play their character as superstitious and not feel like their character has particularly good or bad luck. In fact, a character feeling lucky or not is 100% out of the players hands without the Lucky feat. We are playing a dice game. Luck is very apparent when it matters.
2) Out of all of the halfling abilities, we really have three that are baseline halfling. Lucky. Brave. Nimbleness. And there are problems portraying both Lucky and Brave. And Nimbleness is really difficult to show outside of combat, unless you constantly have your characters fighting through large crowds. Compare to the elf who doesn't get charmed... They still have their weapon training, they still have their superior senses (though that can be hard to show) they still have their trance. There is still a lot that they can show, even without Charm Resistance.
3) Players being allowed to play their own characters and make their own reactions is part of the issue with portraying something like Brave. Because there is more than one player at the table. And, it seems like in the case of Brave, it really pushes you to play a specific personality to come up. Which isn't good, if the player wants to play a different personality. Which they should completely do, but that then cuts into their racial portrayal, in a way that the majority of other races don't do.
4) If the player doesn't care, then it doesn't matter. But what if the player does care, but everything they are doing doesn't feel like enough? What if they are playing a bold, fearless superstitious halfling and come to me and say "Hey. DM, I'm doing all these things, but it still doesn't feel like my halfling is particularly brave or lucky like they are supposed to be." What am I supposed to do? How do I help them portray their character? You said this was basic and easy, and yet despite all your derision, you have yet to give me anything more than "describe things better and have the player roleplay their character."
Am I misremembering, or didn't you start this thread saying you couldn't recall the last time someone in a game you were in played a halfling? Because this sudden introduction of a halfling from a different game who you didn't feel was lucky is awfully suspicious.
But let's say you're telling the truth here. This halfling? Not your character. It's not up to you to determine if the character was "extra lucky." It's also not up to you to determine if the actual player liked the character or not. If the player said "boy, I don't like playing this halfling; it's just not lucky enough," then you might have a point. Did they?
I did not start this thread talking about halflings my games or otherwise. IF I did mention it, I likely was saying that I can't remember the last time I DM'd for a halfling. The only halfling I can really remember was a thief in one game, whose most notable feature was that they got cursed and had an eyeball on their palm that fired blasts of energy.
And, no I don't remember them even mentioning anything about halfling luck. I think they just wanted the +2 Dex for being a rogue and didn't want to play an elf. The only reason I even remember them being a halfing was because they ducked behind cover in the church once.
So, yes, when I am a player and another player has a character and they don't specifically ask me for help, I should butt out. And if I'm the DM, and the player doesn't seem to be frustrated with their character, I'm not going to make more work for myself. But if they do need help... then what?
So, if you do things to make halflings feel lucky, that's favoritism. If you don't do things to make halflings feel lucky, then halflings are pointless or can't be run properly. Uh-huh.
Do you honestly think you have to keep giving this individual random gold pieces just to make them feel lucky? Do you think you can't do this as a one-off and have something else interesting happen later, in another adventure? For that matter, do you really have players who would resent it if one character got an extra coin that one time because they had a racial trait that would make them lucky? If so, those aren't really nice players.
They might, they might not. But the whole reason I asked after this, oh, a dozen and a half posts ago, was because having random good things happen to them might be the only way to make them feel particularly lucky, but that potentially leads to problems. I was trying to have that discussion back when you berated me about needing to look up the term "lucky" in the dictionary.
And yeah, if they are constantly finding gold pieces, or having other random good things happen to them, which makes narrative sense because they are lucky, would that be likely to annoy players who feel like that could be favoritism? I'm not sure, it is a discussion I was hoping to have about this issue, but never could have.
Again, that was one example. And nobody but you said "the majority of the time."
Then how often should it be? I've likely described other people being missed by luck before, so if it is rarely, then are they going to even notice that it is something different than when I describe it for anyone else? I mean "this guy shot you from an ambush and missed you, even though you had no idea he was there" is lucky, whether it was a halfling or a Goliath who got missed. So, how do you portray that as "this is a halflings special luck" instead of just "this is just normal luck"?
I'm appalled because you seem to think that halflings have to be stereotypes, that you have to dictate how the PCs feel or react, that you still refuse to accept what their traits actually do, that you seem to refuse to actually think about any of the things I've written, and that you seem to be incapable of coming up with examples of being lucky on your own.
Honestly, why should I bother to come up with anything? You are the one who took me saying that I had a hard time coming up with anything to mean that I was a terrible DM who needed to read a dictionary. Clearly you felt superior enough and confident enough in the entire situation that you should be able to easily just offer a basic and simple solution that fixes all my problems.
Or maybe, you shouldn't have started off accusing people of lacking skills just because they have been struggling with something that seems to be more nuanced than you have considered.
Sigh. See, right here, this is you refusing to think about what I wrote.
Yes, you can describe what could have happened, even if you would never actually roll on some crit fail table. (And no, I don't use crit fail/success tables either. Doesn't mean I can't use them for description inspiration.)
And then if the same type of thing happens to another player who rolls a 1, maybe even on the same trap... then that terrible fate I described isn't what happens. So, wouldn't that make it obvious I only described it as being worse so that the halfling player could feel more impressive? That would ruin immersion, and might even make it pointless.
I mean, I thought about it, and that was the issue I brought up. Weird how you didn't address that point.
And again, you're refusing to think. I gave you an example.
And anyway, you seem to think it's up to the DM to tell the player how to think and act. Those types of DMs are usually fine with removing all of the PC's hair.
No, I don't. You are just forcing that onto me so you can continue your righteous indignation instead of realizing that I might have a point and you might have shoved your foot in your mouth when you started throwing around accusations.
Secondly, I don't believe that you actually describe degrees of success or failure. If you did, then you'd already know how to describe something that's particularly well-done or badly done.
Just because you are convinced I'm an idiot when it comes to DMing doesn't mean that I am. You seem really determined to just keep putting your own assumptions up as though you fully understand how I run games, and the only possible way I could be having issues is if I'm terrible and controlling and have no idea what I'm doing.
Just like a dwarf's poison resistance and an elf's charm resistance are nice, meta, safety nets.
Nope
Since you refuse to understand the different roles that DMs and PCs have, then that indicates that you have trouble with DMing.
OK, I am going to ask you a serious question here: What do you think players are supposed to do, and what do you think DMs are supposed to do?
Players play the game, and the DM runs the game.
Do you want a dissertation on the seperation of powers, or would that just lead to you nitpicking to prove how I'm a terrible DM?
How is that different from requiring a halfling to feel or act brave or lucky?
If a player chose that race, it is a fair assumption that they want to feel lucky or brave. Maybe they won't. Maybe a player is going to choose a halfling and say "I want to be a coward!" and I don't need to do anything, though if they are being a coward because halflings are supposed to be brave, then I should try and help them emphasize that difference... except, look at that, I am right back where I started, because if there is say a Barbarian, or a fighter or a bard or a sorcerer or a paladin or a rogue or a monk or ranger (ect ect ect) of any race who wants to be a brave character, then they are going to act brave too.
So then, any NPC halfling I have who is acting brave, to help highlight the cowardly halfling playing against type... is overshadowed by the fact that the halfling is adventuring with a Genasi Sorcerer who is brave and is just as brave as that NPC. So, did I help them with their theming or not?
OH! And notice how I never once said I was forcing anyone to roleplay their character, and in fact it is the freedom to roleplay as they like that makes this particular issue so thorny? Almost as if you are wrong about every single thing you say about me?
The race. Not every individual has to be brave all the time.
Sure, but how do you demonstrate the races bravery if not through individuals? Just tell people? Or do I have to have a large population of halflings attacked and then they stand up to fight... hopefully at early levels since most commoners die in droves if facing anything resembling a challenge.
Halfling PCs resist magical fear. Halfling NPCs are as brave as you, the DM, want them to be.
Uh huh. You know it is amusing that I started this conversation talking about halflings ability only resisting magical fear, and how that made it seem like they weren't the brave race people said they were. And how, since there are a lot of tropes about brave commoners, it is hard for halflings to seem unusually brave.
And now we are right back to that same point. Almost as though I knew what I was talking about back then.
Yes, that's what happens when you are in a class that doesn't give you proficiency in or any bonuses to Wisdom saves. The brave orcish cleric is probably fine, though.
Hold up? Are you trying to dictate how a player should be roleplaying their character? Or just acknowleding that magical fear is different from fear? Because if you are trying to say that Brave Orcish Barbarians only make sense if they have wisdom saves... you are kind of insultingly wrong.
That is literally the opposite of what I have told you numerous times.
Halflings are brave. In mundane situations, PC halflings are as brave as their players want them to be, plus they get a bonus to their saves against any effect that would cause them to be frightened. This includes any sort of homebrew fear affects the DM wants, monster-caused fear if the DM decides it's nonmagical in nature (if you put a dragon in an antimagical zone, it's still a football field-sized murder machine. I'd say it's still incredibly frightening.) NPC halflings get the bonus and are exactly as brave as the DM wants them to be.
Gnomes are magic resistant. PC gnomes are as brave as their players want them to be in mundane situations and they get a bonus to Int, Wis, and Cha saves--but if they ever come across something that causes the frightened condition that isn't magical or is but relies on a different save instead*, then the gnome gets no bonus. NPC gnomes are not particularly brave, although the DM is free to make them as brave as they want them to be.
There are several monsters that cause the frightened condition that relies on other saves. Demiliches and orange grungs inflict it on a failed Con save. The lizardfolk subchief from Ghosts of Saltmarch inflicts it on a failed Dex save. The pterrafolk from Tomb of Annihilation inflicts the condition on a successful dive attack; ditto for the lost sorrowsworn, who puts the frightened condition on anyone it hugs*. Mind you, on the last two, halflings also wouldn't get a bonus because there's no save involved--but the halflings would get a bonus against the demilich, grung, and subchief and the gnomes wouldn't. Likewise, gnomes have no particular bonus against spells that require attack rolls instead of saves.
**It's actually a grapple. I just like to think it's so lost and alone it needs a hug. And the hug is really scary. I can't tell if that's aw or ew.
So, the only one of those that you listed that I would agree with are the Grung. I'm not actually familiar with what happens in the adventure for saltmarsh, never played it. Or tomb of annihiliation.
But the Grung, I could give you. Because that is a drug. There is also, unless I decide to homebrew, no "mundane fear" effects. And, lets go back to something. You have accused me... what eight times? Fourteen? Of trying to control my player's emotional reactions. And I specifically pointed out that of course the Dragon's fear aura HAS to be magical. Do you remember why I said that?
Because if it is non-magical, then I am taking away my player's control of their emotional reactions. And that, is a bad thing.
Also, I don't use Grungs, but lets say I did. Grungs abilities would be classified as poisons, right? So, a stout halfling gets advantage on that, because they have poison resistance.
So, if 99% of all fear abilities are magical mental saves, and of the very few examples you can give that give a different sort of save, half of the halflings who might get played are resistant because of poison, not because of fear, then why aren't gnomes as brave as halflings?
Either I homebrew rules to take away player agency, which I don't want to do, or I do what? This is the issue I was trying to show. Unlike something like "charm magic" that has a very clear delineation between a player character's base emotional state and their influenced state, "fear" and "bravery" are much more vague. I don't see how to make it matter unless I limit the phrasing, but then they aren't a race who is brave. They are a race resistant to fear magic. And that is very different than most people's interpretations.
This is the issue I've been struggling with. The one you dismissed as me just being a naughty word DM who doesn't understand that players control their characters. Of course, you could have realized that sooner if you had been interested in discussing instead of just attacking me.
