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

[doctorbadwolf]

No, that's true. You are, however, somewhat obligated to bring up counter points when someone tells you you are 100% wrong. Agreeing with someone that tells you that you are 100% wrong and then expecting me to be able to know which option I'm supposed to respond to isn't exactly productive.

So, yeah, pick a lane. Because, as it stands, it's impossible to discuss halflings. They are now everything. They are peaceful homebodies that love good food and family that love traveling and exploring, preferring the quiet life as opposed to being empire builders, while being tactical experts who are so well trained they don't even need a militia for protection. They don't care about material things but, at the same time, want to accumulate wealth. They want to protect their homes, but, at the same time, will abandon those homes, even after the threat to their homes is dealt with, so that they can continue adventuring with their new friends, even though their new friends have no connection whatsoever to their homes. They are, at the same time, largely absent from the supplements because TSR and WOtC don't care about them, and presented as just as important as any other race in every adventure that WotC has produced for 5e.

You're absolutely right that you don't have to agree with folks who happen to also think that halflings are quite popular, but, it would be nice if you folks could make a coherent argument. As it stands, it looks like halflings are this uber-race in the game that is all things to all people.

There is no “you folks”. There are just individuals.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Once more this is you getting confused. You were objecting that a 20 person village was big. I pointed out that to actually qualify as a village in a D&D definitions table requires a minimum of 400 and that 20 people is barely a thorp. No one is expecting five gnolls to attack a 400 person village.

Also, I'm pretty sure that anytime an attacking force was outnumbered 4:1, they lost, at least outside of very modern warfare anyway.

The thing here is that there are basically three tiers of people when it comes to working out the odds:

1. Civilians
2. Militia/bandits/other people who know how to use a weapon
3. Professionals/Organized veterans

A handful of bandits can expect to cut through unarmed civilians like a hot knife through butter. Do you think that a group of bank robbers have to outnumber the occupants of the bank 4:1 before attacking? No, because they have a tier advantage.

A handful of professionals can expect to cut through militia or even exceptionally green troops fast and easily (up to the point of the Napoleonic battle where the Spanish militia fired their guns and ran away from the noise). The 29th SS division, SS Rona, was considered by its own commanders to have no military value at all.

At a more D&D level do you really think that a group of 5 PCs is going to run away just because they know there are 20 goblins ahead? Because the gnolls think that, being (a)7' tall and deadly, and having Int 6 they are PCs in this analogy and (b) the halflings are civilians and not even as deadly as goblins. They're wrong, of course. Halflings walk and talk like civilians but are low end militia with the bravery in defence of their communities of professionals.

Standard doctrine is a 3:1 ADVANTAGE before attacking. Anything less than that is considered suicidal.

Standard modern doctrine is based on almost everyone being (a) a ranged combatant and (b) able to reload from a prone position. If we go back as far as e.g. the American Civil War people were routinely attacking at 1:1 odds because most of the weapons were muzzle loaders. So this "standard doctrine" is entirely irrelevant.

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.

It depends what they think the odds actually are. I wouldn't expect five gnolls to attack 20 people in chain armour with swords, javelins, and shields. I would expect them to look at a group of 20 unarmed people and see lunch. Halflings look like a group of unarmed people and walk like them. But if they have slings they aren't.

 

[Oofta]

There is no “you folks”. There are just individuals.

Yes, #2203, maintain the illusion.

 

[Krachek]

I think that simulationist world building is a pretty harsh path.
Having to justify any race, settlement, and compare it to possible nearby threats is an utopia.
A Dm don’t have to make a global analyze of economics, warfare and ethnical behavior before setting an adventure in his world!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I’ll just point out that- since the dawn of D&D- modules have included NPCS with levels in almost every settlement I can think of. Some were indeed retired adventurers with significant abilities.

So I would say that assuming a halfling shire has only 0-level commoners is probably against the tide of D&D history.

You may now return to circular bickering.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I must be completely mistaken about the point of this particular discussion. I thought the gnoll raider/halfling slinger discussion was about how to make the halfling culture distinct in a way that makes sense within the fiction. Are you saying it's really about a game scenario that would be played out using the standard game mechanics? How would that work? Would the players be playing the halflings villagers?

No. It was me trying to cut-off the inevitable accusations that my world is a death world and no halflings could possibly survive it because everything is too deadly. And my point was that if they had some crossbows, that'd likely be enough, but slings aren't a good enough weapon for what is being discussed.

I then got a whole lot of posts about how using game mechanics to represent something in the game is a waste of time, accusations of my world being a death world, and questions about how I could possibly expect humans to survive if halflings could never survive in such a world.

The response I made to you was one of the responses wot "why bother using game mechanics to simulate the game world" and the reason why is because if it does become a scene that involves players, then I need to know how the fight works out mechanically. I need to look and say "If I take this seriously, what happens" For other people I guess this is a waste of time, but people have always enjoyed the extra bit of time I take to make sure things work out mechanically.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because your fundamental issue is really all about the weapons table and has very little to do with halflings.

So saying something like "halflings ignore the long range increment (and/or partial cover) when using slings" reinforces the fiction, takes away your weapon table issue, and doesn't dramatically change how powerful they are, since, as you mentioned, they could just use a better weapon.

Reinforces what fiction? Currently there is no fiction that says halflings carry around slings, you are making it up for this excersise. Additionally giving halflings a massively buffed ability with slings starts to seriously warp some current balance in the game. Unless you think every single character getting access to a 120 ft weapon that ignores cover, for free, at level one, isn't a pretty major boost in power. Sure, it is low damage, but the game wasn't built for that to be balanced.

So, you made up some fiction. The fiction isn't quite working, so you buff everything to make it work, and ignore the potential knock-on effects?

All to prevent halflings from using something that looks like a weapon.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Maybe they're all Custom Lineage Halflings who took Sharpshooter as their feat.

 

[Hussar]

Standard modern doctrine is based on almost everyone being (a) a ranged combatant and (b) able to reload from a prone position. If we go back as far as e.g. the American Civil War people were routinely attacking at 1:1 odds because most of the weapons were muzzle loaders. So this "standard doctrine" is entirely irrelevant.

This is mistaken. Good grief Sun Tsu talks about having a numerical superiority and he wrote thousands of years ago.

But, it's funny, militia is worthless who run away when shots are fired (your example) but, halflings are "low end militia" who react at a moments notice with perfect precision and drive off the professional soldiers...

So, again, we see how halflings are quantum individuals. They are both low end militia and crack commandos at the same time.

 

[Oofta]

No. It was me trying to cut-off the inevitable accusations that my world is a death world and no halflings could possibly survive it because everything is too deadly. And my point was that if they had some crossbows, that'd likely be enough, but slings aren't a good enough weapon for what is being discussed.

I then got a whole lot of posts about how using game mechanics to represent something in the game is a waste of time, accusations of my world being a death world, and questions about how I could possibly expect humans to survive if halflings could never survive in such a world.

The response I made to you was one of the responses wot "why bother using game mechanics to simulate the game world" and the reason why is because if it does become a scene that involves players, then I need to know how the fight works out mechanically. I need to look and say "If I take this seriously, what happens" For other people I guess this is a waste of time, but people have always enjoyed the extra bit of time I take to make sure things work out mechanically.

You also seemed to claim that for some bizarre reason halflings paid no taxes. Now it's "they'd be okay if they had crossbows"? Shortbows aren't worthy weapons? Slings, which are dirt cheap, easy to carry and useful for hunting small game would be useless? It's a strange hill to die on. Most commoners are not going to have crossbows, they're weapons of war. If your commoners are constantly at war, then yes, you have a monster world.

Most halflings in my campaign world survive because they aren't constantly being attacked, if they are attacked it's likely that they retreat to their homes (which as others have pointed out are built for small people and likely underground) or run away like commoners throughout history have done. Halfling commoners are no more or less able to protect themselves than human commoners. They're probably more capable for the variety of reasons I, and others, have posted.