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

[pemerton]

I don't think Halfling will be able to hold off Gnoll raiders - even with their slings - without leadership either from returning heroes or from a pony-riding golf- (or should that be polo-)playing Halfling.

 

[Neonchameleon]

well if a high elf is said to do X it would be nice if you could just slot the relevant properties onto a guard captain stat block to make a high elf guard captain, sort of like lego bricks.
look I have no idea about monster design but they are rather slow to kill and could be more fun to fight or interact with.

To me the high point of monster design was easily mid-late 4e where monsters were very easy to design, had defined combat roles meaning you interacted with the group, and had variety both within and across races so the way halfling and high elf guard captains worked could be different because they lead their guards differently.

 

[Hussar]

To me the high point of monster design was easily mid-late 4e where monsters were very easy to design, had defined combat roles meaning you interacted with the group, and had variety both within and across races so the way halfling and high elf guard captains worked could be different because they lead their guards differently.

Now THIS, I 100% agree with.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

And the grade by the way should be set no higher than the current ninth most played race given that there are nine races in the PHB. I'd advocate for expansion out to ten.

Yes, your summary where you ignore that your case is incoherent and if taken seriously is an argument against excluding halflings and pretend that nothing has been said other than about gnomes is a good summary of how you have been handling this thread.

I set the bar at 8, you set it at 9. Ok. The point is, you still set the bar, no? Even if you expand the bar to 10. It's simply a difference of where to set the bar, not the notion that the bottom ranked PHB races need something.

AFAIC, the only reason halflings are even in 8th place is because they are in the Basic Rules. Like I said, if they add kobolds in as a free to play race, halflings will vanish. Think about it this way - the main archetype for halfling PC's is rogue. I think we can agree there. Kobolds make really, really good rogues. Small, sneaky character? Yeah, halflings currently are the only choice you can make for that archetype in the PHB and it shows - about 1/3 of halflings were rogues according to the 2017 numbers. The next highest choice was bard, and they were about half as much.

Add a free to play kobold into DDB? That's all she wrote for halflings because not only do kobolds dovetail nicely with the second most popular class, rogues, but, they also have lots of traction as sorcerers and wizards.

Thinking about it, we probably won't see it happen becuase WotC can do the math same as I can. Adding kobolds to the PHB would show halflings the door. And they've spent far too much time building on halflings to do that.

/edit to add

The reason you see my arguments as incoherent @Neonchameleon is that I keep being forced to argue against diametrically opposed facts that are both claimed to be true. Makes it hard to be coherent when halflings are both present in many 5e supplements and used very effectively AND are virtually absent from 5e supplements and are barely being used at the same time.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

Two reasons

1) Flipping a coin is too swingy

2) If it ever becomes a large scale NPC vs NPC battle with PCs involved, then I am going to have to take this sort of thing into account. Like, if I'm describing the NPCs turns, and I say that the halfling slinger kills the Gnoll in a single shot, and the player shoots a heavy crossbow and the gnoll is still standing... won't that dissonance matter?

So why hand wave everything, and set-up expectations, then have the expectations ruined when it actually matters because I didn't bother to at least try and match up the game to the reality? And no, I'm not talking about hyper-realism here, just taking the game mechanics as face value and setting up the scenario based on that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

By giving all halfling commoners a feat meant for extremely skilled archers, beyond what a trained archer can do?

Why is it so hard to just let them use crossbows? Country people today have guns. Luke Skywalker had a flying ship with a cannon at his farm in star wars. Yet it is utterly concept breaking for a halfling to have the equivalent level of weaponry in the crossbow? You'd rather that they have an extreme level of training that is equivalent to a 4th level character just so they can use slings instead?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

well if a high elf is said to do X it would be nice if you could just slot the relevant properties onto a guard captain stat block to make a high elf guard captain, sort of like lego bricks.
look I have no idea about monster design but they are rather slow to kill and could be more fun to fight or interact with.

Not only can you already do that, as a GM it's sort of your job to do that.

There isnt a prewritten "Lego brick" that you always use to make X an elf or halfling, but it's pretty much part of the 5e design that you are free to improvise the monster stat blocks because NPC/monster build rules is explicitly said to be different than PC build rules.

In 3e they had the system you are asking for, where everything is a Lego brick and you can make whatever you want following the same res as building a PC While that was "fair" in a sense to keep everything on par, it's also was a LOT of work on the GMs part.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

To match two crossbows, you'd need 4 slings. Yes, I get the idea that "every single halfling will have a sling and can fight" but relying ONLY on slings is the issue at hand here. At a certain point, the numbers are just too ridiculous.

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.

120 ft, in the dark? Remember I said the gnolls would attack at night when they have the advantage. And this tanks the halflings accuracy. Dropping them to 25%. Meanwhile, the gnolls are sitting at 44% I believe I said. And so, now you need 4 halflings with slings to cover two crossbows, and then 8 halflings to guarantee two hits.

But gnolls need 6 hits to be taken out, so now to take out a single gnoll the numbers are looking at 48 halflings to take out a single gnoll.

Yeah, this IS an issue of numbers. And range, and cover. Because all this cover the halflings are using can benefit the gnolls too. Not for 3/4, but for 1/2 cover. So, the gnolls could end up with +2 AC, dropping the halfling accuracy even more. And since the Gnolls can attack from much further than the halflings, they can do exactly what it says they do in the book, soften up the target from range before moving in. They fire from 200 ft out, far beyond what the halflings can take, while a second group moves into melee.

This isn't even difficult tactics. And it ruins your proposed situations.

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.

Right. This, this right here? This is my point. They can have better weapons and use them. IF you want to make it 5 crossbows, 10 shortbows and 30 slingers, fine whatever, my point has only been that just having slingers isn't enough.

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.

Yes, humans take a different approach. So what? The human approach also includes walls and tends to work pretty well actually. Not perfectly, because gnolls still raid and destroy human villages, but it works as well as any strategy can.

Only people doing better are elves and dwarves, who with universal weapon training and severe terrain advantages are nearly impregnable.

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.

I know you are committed to this idea that the moment a threat enters the village, 60 halflings drop everything they are doing, pull their slings, and crack sixty stones at the threat, all within 10 seconds, but the entire point I'm trying to make is that there is no reason not to have better weapons in the village, and people who are expected and trained to use them.

Because there is a counter-point here. If you didn't need those men in armor and better weapons, if every single threat could be taken out by people with a strip of leather and a handful of rocks... why would better weapons and armor even exist? Why would humans pay all that money they covet to have all this armor and weaponry when they don't need it?

Check your math.

Sling is 1d4+2, average of 1d4 is 2.5, 2.5+2= 4.5. turning 4.5 into a range is 4 to 5. True average of two shots is 9

Light crossbow is 1d8+2, average of 1d8 is 4.5, 4.5+2 = 6.5. Turning 6.5 into a range is 6 to 7. True average of two shots is 13

I guess you take exception to me saying "double the damage" when technically two slings is 1.3846 times the damage of a crossbow? I mean, it takes two, which is double of one, and you really can't do 0.40 of an attack.

Well, I guess when you start taking into account range, accuracy, ect, which the light crossbow has better range the ability to not be at disadvantage. At a range of 50 ft the sling is approximately 25% accuracy, which I think takes the average damage of 9 from two shots to closer to 2.25, while the crossbow would be closer to 40% accuracy, taking that single of 6 to 2.4, which is about the same... one crossbow to two slings. Double the number of slings.

Have I satisfactorily over explained what I simplified before?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Weird. The book I'm using says "Monster Manual". Are those all PC rules? Dang, that's awesome. Lot of stuff in here I'd think was broken on a player character.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The reason you see my arguments as incoherent

Is because it's massively effected by confirmation bias. Things like you assume halflings are only at their current level of popularity because of the basic rules due to the fact that you cannot conceive of people liking them despite... you know, this thread.