D&D General My Problem(s) With Halflings, and How To Create Engaging/Interesting Fantasy Races

[Hussar]

This is not a reasonable expectation.

I am not beholden to someone else's arguments. Ever. The end.

Yet, funnily you'll keep telling me how wrong I am and argue with every point I make, but, the person sitting next to you, who is telling you you are 100% wrong, thus your argument is completely wrong (after all, he's claimed REPEATEDLY that you are wrong and that halflings are well supported outside of the core books) gets not so much as a whisper of discussion from you.

So, which point would you like me to talk about? Because you can't both be right. So, you tell me, how am I supposed to carry a conversation with people who claim mutually exclusive facts but completely agree with each other?

Again, you folks sort your stuff out and let me know because, well, right now it's punching fog. If I agree with you, I'm 100% wrong according to @Faolyn, and, if I agree with @Faolyn, you can claim that I'm wrong. Either way, I'm wrong. And, I'm being accused of arguing in bad faith?

 

[Hussar]

Hussar thinks that because halflings aren't popular enough (by whatever criteria they're using), they should get tossed out of the PH. However, several other races, including gnomes, are less popular--but Hussar isn't, to the best of my knowledge, advocating for throwing gnomes out.

Yeah, it's strange that in a thread ABOUT HALFLINGS, I'm not talking about stuff that isn't halflings. Note, I've REPEATEDLY stated that anything in the bottom of the barrel should get the punt and make room for stuff that has better chances of being played. But, yes, feel free to ignore me repeatedly stating that, over and over again. Having to repeat myself over and over and over again because people can't help but make accusations that aren't based in any facts just really helps the conversation.

Since we want to be all honest and all.

I mean, perhaps, just perhaps, if you cannot be bothered reading my posts, we could go back to you not responding to me, like I requested a while ago after you repeatedly insisted that the only reason I was arguing this was I hated halflings?

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Last thread, which is why I wanted to avoid the fight, but I figured I'd get dragged in regardless.



I'm with you for most of it, but slings aren't effective enough. Range of 30 ft if you don't want disadvantage is too close, 1d4+1 is an average of 3 damage (my math previously said 4, I think I was rounding up) meaning it would take potentially 7 strikes to take down a gnoll, at close range when they only need one strike.

Are slings a good weapon for halflings lore wise? Yes.
Do I like you description and think it is cool? Yes.
Do I think it works on a mechanical level? No.

Much like people keep hunting rifles near their houses, I can see halflings keeping crossbows near their houses, and that provides enough benefits to give them a fighting chance.

Why are you using the regular game mechanics to evaluate a large scale NPC vs NPC battle?

 

[Hussar]

You say that is if there weren't plenty of real-world examples of armies attacking forces that grossly outnumbered them. Sometimes they won. Sometimes they lost.

The answer usually boils down to either extreme need or stupid pride.

Just as a guess here, since now we're insisting that 5 gnolls are attacking a village of FOUR HUNDRED people at a minimum, that perhaps the original example is a bit flawed.

Also, I'm pretty sure that anytime an attacking force was outnumbered 4:1, they lost, at least outside of very modern warfare anyway. Standard doctrine is a 3:1 ADVANTAGE before attacking. Anything less than that is considered suicidal. While gnolls might not be the brightest things in the world, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be attacking at such a HUGE disadvantage.

 

[Gammadoodler]

So then the answer is yes, they can break down the door, so the halflings are not fortified.



Actually... the gnolls are just following the lore in how they replenish. That has nothing to do with anything. Their "perfect tactics" involve... shooting arrows or throwing spears at people they can't stab, and not just running through a hail of sling-stones and dying without hitting anyone.

And the people with perfect knowledge of ranges seem to be the halflings who are always 30 ft away before firing their slings (and being able to move back 30 ft, since they aren't going to end up in melee)

And, I actually answered that question of how can they drive off raiding parties.

They have crossbows, and have trained a bit in how to fight and drive off gnolls. My only complaint was that slings are an inadequate weapon for defending a town against a threat. I'd also prefer some more militant things, like rangers or scouts and maybe a wall for the village, but that's it.




Shaped hills? So, they just have windy streets? And the gnolls can't run over the hills and ignore this sudden cover because....

Look, this isn't that hard to get right? Slings just aren't a strong enough weapon with a long enough range. The rest of this is stuff that can potentially work, maybe, but not if the halflings have to be withing 30 ft. A Light Crossbow takes them from an average of 4-5 damage (assuming your +2 dex mod, which I'm just giving you at this point) to an average of 6-7 damage. That is doubling their damage. And their range is massively increased. To the point where the gnolls can't throw the spears at them, and they would need to rely on the bows. Which does make it incredibly dangerous for the halflings still, but gives them a far better fighting chance.

And that is it. That is the miracle I am asking for. Better weapons than a sling, which simply isn't going to cut it against dangerous enemies. Maybe they carry the sling for personal protection while traveling, or in the city, but if you are talking about defending the town from a raid? You need more than slings.

I think a reasonable compromise would be to just say halfling commoners gain some of the benefits of the sharpshooter feat when using slings.

Flavor doesn't change in any meaningful way and you can satisfy yourself with the results of this verrry hypothetical battle.

 

[lingual]

Why are you using the regular game mechanics to evaluate a large scale NPC vs NPC battle?

To win the internet

You all have won in my book.

 

[Hussar]

I think a reasonable compromise would be to just say halfling commoners gain some of the benefits of the sharpshooter feat when using slings.

Flavor doesn't change in any meaningful way and you can satisfy yourself with the results of this verrry hypothetical battle.

Wait, what? You figure that a halfling commoner is now a FOURTH level character? Sorry, but halflings don't get feats.

Why are you using the regular game mechanics to evaluate a large scale NPC vs NPC battle?

You consider 5 gnolls vs a dozen (ish) halfling commoners to be a large scale battle?

/edit - sorry, I know I changed the number, but, the notion that our hypothetical gnoll raiders are so blindingly stupid that they will stay and fight with a 4:1 disadvantage is ludicrous. That our gnoll raiders, being so blindingly stupid, don't bother to do any tracking, scouting, or otherwise do any basic stuff that 10 year olds would do before attacking, like, I don't know, attacking at night where my gnolls now have advantage on every attack (because you can't see me) and you have disadvantage on every attack? Exactly how stupid are the monsters in your campaigns?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Look, this isn't that hard to get right? Slings just aren't a strong enough weapon with a long enough range.

Look, if this isn't a hard thing to get right then why are you so determined to get it wrong?

Slings do not hit as hard as crossbows and no one ever said they did. But if how hard you hit is what you see as important then you just need two slings to match a crossbow. Saying "they don't hit hard enough" when crossbows can do the job is fundamentally not an issue if you are enabling more people to fight.

The range is a point but not an overwhelming one. You are talking about "have to be within 30ft". Why? Again this is an issue of numbers. They have to be within 120ft, sure. Or take cover. Again, you need more halflings.

But the point of the sling is that every halfling can carry one at all times. It's about 1lb of weight including the stones and you wear it on your belt or in your pockets.

This doesn't mysteriously prevent halflings who think they will need them from wearing shortbows (or, more rarely, light crossbows) on their back. And if they happen to be home when there's a call to deal with invaders then any who have and can use bows will grab them - and possibly those of other people in the house too to bring them.

But the point of the slings is that pretty close to 100% of teenage and adult halflings are ready to defend their community at almost no notice and can and will make a meaningful contribution.

By contrast humans are much more likely to use a formal militia system with designated people on designated days carrying the effective weapons. Wandering round with 6lb of bulky crossbow + bolts on their backs and possibly armour that gets in the way of what they are intending to do that day.

The gnolls are only partially relevant. The big question is which system is better for protecting the village from a range of threats? The one with the designated militia? Or the one by the race noted for its farming where everyone is able to contribute to the defence at a moment's notice even if a slinger only provides about a third of the firepower that a properly equipped militia member does.

If humans can protect a village with a militia then halflings can primarily with slings. And if somewhere would be untenable for halflings then it is for humans.

If, on the other hand the place is so dangerous that all the humans are wearing crossbows or military weapons like polearms at all times then yes, slings aren't enough. But this is a weird village.

Q A Light Crossbow takes them from an average of 4-5 damage (assuming your +2 dex mod, which I'm just giving you at this point) to an average of 6-7 damage. That is doubling their damage.

Check your math.

 

[Neonchameleon]

/edit - sorry, I know I changed the number, but, the notion that our hypothetical gnoll raiders are so blindingly stupid that they will stay and fight with a 4:1 disadvantage is ludicrous.

Why? Seriously, raiders are almost always seriously outnumbered. I'd expect 5 gnolls to go through 20 human commoners that aren't visibly armed like prunes through an elderly grandmother. They even have a literal special ability that helps them massacre large numbers of weak foes.

I'd no more expect five gnolls to retreat from 20 not visibly armed villagers than I would five wolves from 20 sheep or a pair of foxes from a dozen chickens.

 

[bedir than]

Yall doing more analysis of the mechanics and economy than the game designers ever cared or bothered to do.

They aren't because they continue to ignore the fact that they are attempting to use PC rules for things that don't use PC rules.