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

[Oofta]

I suppose I can't just move on, gotta keep defending myself to the spectators.

No other defenses were part of the original premise. They were added afterwards when it became clear that slings alone were inadequate.

I believe crossbows are the best option, they have good range, they have good damage, and they are the easiest to use, being simply pointing and pulling the trigger. If you would rather have the types of defenses @Faolyn has been imaging like watchtowers, a wall, and defensive shrubbery, then those could work too. However, slings alone are insufficient.



Ancient mech halflings? Really, that isn't going to change their core identity, but using a crossbow would be bad because they are "weapons of war"

I agree that you could have things like bow wielding outriders, but where everyone seems to keep stumbling in this conversation is that I was engaging in a scenario, not a wahtaboutism where we could just make things up until we got the right answer. It isn't that I can't imagine or don't accept other answers, it was that the specific answer given initially didn't work, and then they kept trying to alter the scenario until it did work instead of just admitting it didn't and that more things would be needed.



Wow pot, that's a nice sentiment there

I'm done having conversations with you. Have a good one.

 

[Gammadoodler]

So now that I have proven to your satisfaction that I was not doing anything wrong, can we move on? Or do I still need to defend the fact that I was engaged in a discussion that had a premise that you were not a part of?

Lol. I never said you were doing anything wrong. I said you were doing something pointless. That's still true.

We've now further refined what's happening to also include that the parties involved have not been communicating effectively. It appears you feel no motivation to try and correct that.

Please do move on. This is clearly a strong basis for a fruitful discussion.

 

[Faolyn]

They did, I'd show you the quote but I can't see it anymore.

You can always sign out or use a different browser, you know.

No. It was never specified whether the village was in an area expecting and used to such attacks or not. These changes to the initial premise came suddenly, and then were presented as though they had always been the facts. That was my complaint against them

If it wasn't specified, then it's fair game to include that notion. Because the facts are that in a world where invasion by bloodthirsty monsters is a legitimate threat, people would defend against them.

DING DING DING!!

SHE GETS IT!!

I'm not engaging in special pleading. I'm not trying to prove halflings can't defend themselves. My entire point was, a normal everyday village, with the defenses listed, would be hard pressed to fight off a gnoll attack, and would likely be destroyed. For the entire purpose of saying "Hey, I think they need some better weapons, maybe some militia or scouts".

Really? Because from out here, it looks like your point wasn't "any village would be killed off by raids" but to specify that halflings would be killed off. Especially when you rejected the idea that they would have access to militia and scouts, whether their own or by paying taxes to other people who supply the militia and scouts.

I would agree with you.

I have also been told that such a premise makes my worlds death worlds where no society could ever survive. In fact, last thread

This is true. Because you are assuming that the people in your deathworlds build their villages exactly like humans in the real world did, even when they're not humans, and that they wouldn't include any defenses against legitimate monster raids, and without taking magic and general D&D weirdness into account.

We are taking into account the fact that there are legitimate size differences between halflings and gnolls and that halflings are fully capable of taming, training, or domesticating monstrous creatures, and that there is magic that can be used.

I was told repeatedly that halflings would always build in the most safe areas where monsters could never threaten them, and therefore needed no defenses.

No you weren't. At least not the latter part. Canonically, however, halflings build their villages in safe areas and build them hidden away where it is difficult to find them.

The roof being reinforced means they doors are reinforced? Why? Is the cow walking through the doors to?

It means that halflings understand the concept of reinforcing their homes.

And I wasn't supposed to assume "DnDland" levels of threat in the world. I agree with you that that all sounds reasonable, but I've been told that I'm not supposed to raise the threat level that high or I'm being unreasonable. Heck, I was accused of it anyways.

Because--once again--you are increasing the dangers without allowing people to respond to the dangers.

So halflings are smarter and that means that gnolls can't be better at destroying things? 6 yr olds can play whack-a-mole. The idea of "don't shoot til you see them" isn't so difficult that someone of below average intelligence can't grasp it.

It means that halflings aren't just fish in a barrel, as you would have them be.

I destroy what I a come across. You don't need to be actively searching for halflings in particular.

And if halfling villages are hidden, then the gnolls are less likely to see them. Or they would only destroy the paddocks and above-ground parts and leave the underground homes intact. And if the halflings truly felt that they were outnumbered and outclassed, they would hide underground (along with their probably decent-sized stores of food) until the threat passed.

No, that is basing off the scenario described. If you wanted to discuss halflings and their pet ankheg hive then you needed to present a new premise, not act as though that was part of the original premise.

Fine: the premise is that people who live in a magical, monster-filled world would include defenses against magic and monsters to the best of their abilities, and would themselves employ magic and monsters while doing so.

You know. What you actually will find in the game, as opposed to your premise, which doesn't exist.

None of which were presented and many of which I've been told in the past are not allowed.

Good lord, I practically have scars from people's reactions last thread when I DARED suggest halflings might have a wall around their village.

No you didn't. You even pointed out that NeonChameleon suggested there would be a wall around a halfling village. And I suggested ha-has, which are half-wall, half-ditch.

The premise was slings were their defenses. I engaged on those terms.

The premise was that slings were traditional halfling weapons (in 2e and 3x, dunno about 4e), not that halflings would only use slings and reject all other weapons.

A concept I've been raked over the coals for before. I love how I'm the bad guy for not engaging in the level of threat I presented last time, which got me eviscerated. Bet as soon as I engage that concept, I'm right back to being called unreasonable.

You're the "bad guy" because you are either grossly misunderstanding what people are saying and refusing to accept explanations (instead whining that you're being attacked), or fully understanding it but lying about it.

You keep bringing up INT 6. Orcus is an insane creature of demonic evil too... but he can make a plan.

Orcus' Intelligence and Wisdom scores are 20. Maybe, just maybe, that's a bit better than an Int 6 Wis 10 gnoll with a terminal case of mob mentality?

Which was the premise I was given. And no, I've never stated they are worthless, that they can't defend themselves or that they have nothing to defend themselves with.

My entire point was "halflings+slings and that is it" is inadequate. IF you agree, then great! We agree. Problem solved.

I believe that you, earlier, linked to an r/AskHistorians thread? Someone did, at any rate. Well, here's another thread from them that seems to suggest that they are actually quite dangerous, even to people in (leather) armor.

Now, in D&Dland, slings don't do a lot of damage. Not as much as they should, at least. But, when combined with other reasonable precautions that halflings (or other races) may take, slings, even doing d4 damage could be quite effective. And mind you, some of those reasonable precautions could include an halfling or two with the magic stone cantrip.

This is where you constantly trip up. You are assuming a flat plain where the halflings have no defenses or weapons other than slings and getting upset when other people are (rightly) pointing out that this is illogical and unrealistic and would never happen anywhere other than your deathworld.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The premise was that slings were traditional halfling weapons (in 2e and 3x, dunno about 4e), not that halflings would only use slings and reject all other weapons.

In 4e halflings had some feats to make slings more effective, but I don't recall what they were. I think some were class feats, so if you were a halfling rogue you could sneak attack with slings better or something like that.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

They did, I'd show you the quote but I can't see it anymore.



No. It was never specified whether the village was in an area expecting and used to such attacks or not. These changes to the initial premise came suddenly, and then were presented as though they had always been the facts. That was my complaint against them



DING DING DING!!

SHE GETS IT!!

I'm not engaging in special pleading. I'm not trying to prove halflings can't defend themselves. My entire point was, a normal everyday village, with the defenses listed, would be hard pressed to fight off a gnoll attack, and would likely be destroyed. For the entire purpose of saying "Hey, I think they need some better weapons, maybe some militia or scouts".

That was it.

I was then told that I was wrong, because this is a well-fortified village that deals with gnoll attacks all the time, and they have a death maze of cover and heavily reinforced doors and dirt rooms with no windows and on and on and on. Whereas if they would have said "Okay, your right in this scenario they would lose, but what if they..." then I would have accepted the changes and we could have discussed the most effective ways to defend a village that was prepared for such an attack.

Instead I've spent the last six posts or more defending myself because I was trying to stick to the original premise instead of making up things to gain an advantage.



I would agree with you.

I have also been told that such a premise makes my worlds death worlds where no society could ever survive. In fact, last thread I was told repeatedly that halflings would always build in the most safe areas where monsters could never threaten them, and therefore needed no defenses.

Me and you? We agree that doesn't really work.

I will add, the magically hidden village really doesn't work for me either. No matter how well you hide the homes by pretending they are hills, you still have paddocks, grazing herds of farm animals, and fields of plants being farmed. The amount of terrain advantages and lifestyle changes (no fires or fireplaces, no loud celebrations) that you would need to hide something like that is unreasonable to my mind. Especially to hide them, not from civilized people who don't know the wilderness, but from wilderness people who travel through the wilds every day of their lives looking for places to attack.

I don't want to get into this discussion, because I'm already sick of all the personal attacks, and people are going to do what they want anyways, but it does bear mentioning.



Sure whatever.



The roof being reinforced means they doors are reinforced? Why? Is the cow walking through the doors to?

And I wasn't supposed to assume "DnDland" levels of threat in the world. I agree with you that that all sounds reasonable, but I've been told that I'm not supposed to raise the threat level that high or I'm being unreasonable. Heck, I was accused of it anyways.




So halflings are smarter and that means that gnolls can't be better at destroying things? 6 yr olds can play whack-a-mole. The idea of "don't shoot til you see them" isn't so difficult that someone of below average intelligence can't grasp it.



I destroy what I a come across. You don't need to be actively searching for halflings in particular.

Again, the premise was "normal halfling village being raided by gnolls" I never stated it was "gnolls hunt all halflings to extinction" or anything else that makes your question relevant. It doesn't matter for the scenario we were discussing why or how the gnolls are attacking. They were. If you want to put forth that a halfling village is safe if it is hidden, and destroyed if it is found, then great, but trying to say I've been unreasonable because I addressed the scencario being discussed is wrong.



No, that is basing off the scenario described. If you wanted to discuss halflings and their pet ankheg hive then you needed to present a new premise, not act as though that was part of the original premise.



None of which were presented and many of which I've been told in the past are not allowed.

Good lord, I practically have scars from people's reactions last thread when I DARED suggest halflings might have a wall around their village.

The premise was slings were their defenses. I engaged on those terms.



A concept I've been raked over the coals for before. I love how I'm the bad guy for not engaging in the level of threat I presented last time, which got me eviscerated. Bet as soon as I engage that concept, I'm right back to being called unreasonable.



Agreed. I am not supposed to engage with that idea though. That's assuming a death world. (Are you noticing a pattern here? We agree, I was just told not to take things at this value last time. Because that was unreasonable. Now, it is unreasonable to not engage with these ideas.)



You keep bringing up INT 6. Orcus is an insane creature of demonic evil too... but he can make a plan.



Which was the premise I was given. And no, I've never stated they are worthless, that they can't defend themselves or that they have nothing to defend themselves with.

My entire point was "halflings+slings and that is it" is inadequate. IF you agree, then great! We agree. Problem solved.



I'm already late to work, so I'll put a pin in this (should have left 15 minutes ago, but I was trying to finish responding)

Can you please drop your halflings village attack discussion? It's clearly just picking up the thread from a previous topic that was closed because people can't always be civil. It was closed for a reason and dragging it here will just close this one.

 

[FrozenNorth]

OTOH, one of the most famous sling users in history was a shepherd- a.k.a. King David.*



* who may have actually used a staff sling, based on the texts, not the art.

Ironically, it seems to me that the story was noteworthy principally because David was the underdog, and his victory was memorialized because of how unlikely it was.

Kind of like how sharks get a bad rep, since people killed by sharks are sufficiently unusual to make the news, unlike people killed in automobile accidents.

 

[pemerton]

There's an important corollary to this, however. In oD&D and AD&D 1e elves and dwarves have fairly tight level caps for people other than thieves. The justification at Gygax's and Arneson's tables was not that this was a limit to possible advancement (NPC elves could be pretty powerful) - it was that when they had a high enough level they went home with their fortune made and respect due. Which is why thieves didn't.

Which means that it's not so much that elves and dwarves always have at least 1hd but that towns, villagers, and children are expected to be human and occasionally halfling. Elven and dwarven homelands are not covered so much.

I don't really see how this is relevant to villagers vs gnolls. Especially Halfling villagers, who labour under the strictest level caps in the game.

If you're suggesting that the minimum of 1 HD does not apply to the "true" Elven and Dwarven homelands, I simply don't agree. The AD&D MM gives rules for Dwarven and Elven lairs as much as for Orcish and Gnolls and Halfling ones, and the inhabitants thereof have at least 1 HD. Typical Elves and Dwarves are just tougher than typical humans and Halflings.

 

[Krachek]

Say a raiding band of gnolls. total xp between 1000 and 3000xp.
If you want a village to regularly and successfully engage such warbands, you need a global force at least 2 time and even more. Say 8000xp. You fill the xp budget with guards, scout, Druid, and that‘s it, you got a sample village milician force.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Lol. I never said you were doing anything wrong. I said you were doing something pointless. That's still true.

We've now further refined what's happening to also include that the parties involved have not been communicating effectively. It appears you feel no motivation to try and correct that.

Please do move on. This is clearly a strong basis for a fruitful discussion.

How am I supposed to try and correct a misunderstanding with someone who blocked me?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Can you please drop your halflings village attack discussion? It's clearly just picking up the thread from a previous topic that was closed because people can't always be civil. It was closed for a reason and dragging it here will just close this one.

I was willing to drop it when Neonchameleon blocked me.

Then Gammadoodler, Oofta and Faolyn all decided to start going at me over it. All I'm doing now is responding to them