D&D 5E Halflings are the 7th most popular 5e race

[Vaalingrade]

If all we are considering is the effect of an attack roll with a specific type of weapon, I'd agree with you. But in 3E, that penalty to Strength affected a lot more than attacks...it changed how much you could carry, which feats you were eligible for, the armor you could wear, and so on. Now, all of that is ignored or optional in 5E, replaced with "you have Disadvantage with these six weapons right here."

And that was still preferable to that flat "You can't do that," full stop, that we had played with under the older editions. Can't use polearms, can't use magic, can't use a longbow, can't, can't, can't...

Let's be clear though, it's still can't, just said quietly enough that some people won't see the punishment for non-compliance until it's too late.

 

[CleverNickName]

Let's be clear though, it's still can't, just said quietly enough that some people won't see the punishment for non-compliance until it's too late.

It really isn't.

 

[Hussar]

I see it quite a lot, and the reason is, simply put, that most DM's don't want to run low-challenge encounters, which are supposed to be the most common type of encounter. They'd rather use most of their xp budget on big, challenging setpiece encounters, which of course, means that the enemies can rather easily knock a player to 0 hit points. I saw it in Adventure League adventures, I saw it in home games, where you only have time for 1-3 fights per session, and I'm seeing it now in the megadungeon I'm playing in (Scarlet Citadel, by Kobold Press).

When you have limited time, and want to have the game to be exciting, this happens. Because something like "you come upon three orcs in a room", which, by rights, ought to be a standard encounter, you barely need to bust out the dice.

And even in an easy encounter, enemies can be dangerous if they focus fire: in my last 5e session (that I was playing in), we actually came upon a room full of goblins. It lasted 3 rounds, but only because our first turn was spent getting past a barricade. The goblins were easy opponents, but the Ranger still went to 0 hit points because they were the first person to get past the barricade, and they got shot full of arrows for their trouble!

So yeah, I pretty much see someone healed from 0 in at least half of all encounters. I can't imagine my experience is all that unique.

But one pc going to zero hp once in an encounter isn’t “whack a mole” is it? Your example was a 3 round encounter. There just can’t be that much up and down.

Or are we saying that any encounter where any pc is reduced to zero hp counts as whack a mole? Am I misunderstanding the term? I was under the impression that whack a mole meant you were repeatedly picking up a pc over the course of an encounter. As in more than once.

 

[James Gasik]

If all we are considering is the effect of an attack roll with a specific type of weapon, I'd agree with you. But in 3E, that penalty to Strength affected a lot more than attacks...it changed how much you could carry, which feats you were eligible for, the armor you could wear, and so on. Now, all of that is ignored or optional in 5E, replaced with "you have Disadvantage with these six weapons right here."

And that was still preferable to that flat "You can't do that," full stop, that we had played with under the older editions. Can't use polearms, can't use magic, can't use a longbow, can't, can't, can't...

Technically, however, Halflings, even with a -2 to Strength, could carry quite a bit, since their carry capacity was reduced to 75%, but most of the heavy items they'd want to carry around weighed 50%.

 

[James Gasik]

But one pc going to zero hp once in an encounter isn’t “whack a mole” is it? Your example was a 3 round encounter. There just can’t be that much up and down.

Or are we saying that any encounter where any pc is reduced to zero hp counts as whack a mole? Am I misunderstanding the term? I was under the impression that whack a mole meant you were repeatedly picking up a pc over the course of an encounter. As in more than once.

Ah see, I consider "whack-a-mole" healing to be the whole "let them drop, we'll just heal them from 0 more efficiently".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

isn't it kind of a bit hard to declare that human physiology doesn't define us when there's no other directly comparible sapient species on our planet?

Evidently not--because it's not my argument. Ask @Lanefan why humans can do anything, but non-humans cannot.

Its never really about the options existing or not, as the option, the choice, the 'self determination' is always there.

It always comes down to 'I want to be optimal as well'.

They're completely separate discussions though. There's a very big difference between the following two statements:

1. "Dwarves are banned from playing Wizard, because Dwarf Wizards would be overpowered if allowed."
2. "Players rarely play Dwarf Wizards, because Dwarves do not get an Intelligence bonus, making them weaker than others that have such bonus."

The former is permission, justified by an ought argument (we ought not allow OP things.) The latter is description, about what player preferences are, and merely tries to explain why (players are motivated by presence/absence of features.)

Now, sure, I and others often then make a new third argument, starting from an added new premise: "Players ought to be able to play what interests them, rather than what is mathematically best." By itself, largely unobjectionable, but many claim it leads (they argue unavoidably) to objectionable things. But with it, we get a valid syllogism:

P1: Players choose not to play Dwarf Wizards because they're below par compared to other options.
P2: Players ought to be able to play what interests them, rather than what is mathematically best.
C: Therefore, Dwarves (and all races) ought not be below par compared to other options.

A main argument against this new, third idea (completely distinct from both #1 and #2) is that the facile way to fulfill C is to make everything the same. Now, TBH, I usually find this argument phrased in pretty overblown ways, but it's got a kernel of truth. We offer distinct race options because they are distinct: they explore archetypes, support themes, and add flavor and variety. Call it Q: "Player character races should support distinct concepts." Hence, removing distinct racial ability bonuses (RABs) erases some of that distinctiveness. That's a valid concern.

But from that valid concern, an invalid claim gets derived: "Because the facile way of achieving C is bad, costing us Q, we should not pursue C at all." But that does not follow. It would only follow that we should not pursue C if C were functionally incompatible with Q (allowing for the possibility that they could work together, but be too cumbersome to use.)

First, it's not true because ability scores aren't the only difference. Dragonborn have elemental halitosis. Elves have trance. Etc. These features can, and arguably should, carry more weight than bland +2 to whatever. They make much more impact on character behavior and world elements than ability scores do. Second, maybe more important, there are other, better ways to seek C. Ones that don't remove RABs--but do change them. Specifically, 13A's method. At chargen, you pick one +2 from your race's two options. But you still get two bonuses, the other a choice of two based on class (but no doubling up! No +4 Int because you play Elf Wizard.)

• Every Dwarf will always be either stout (Con) or wise, no matter what class they play.
• Every Wizard will always be either wise or intelligent, no matter what race they play.
• Every Dragonborn will always be either strong or charismatic, no matter what class they play.
• Every Paladin will always be either strong or charismatic, no matter what race they play.

Now, some might argue that "either Con or Wis" means Dwarves have less identity--but even 5e already didn't do that, because Mountain Dwarves are Con/Wis, while Hill are Con/Str. Variations within a single race are already the norm. Notably, this means you have three options for Dwarf Wizard--and one of them means getting the two Dwarf bonuses anyway! A Dragonborn Wizard has four options (Str/Int, Str/Wis, Cha/Int, Cha/Wis), but a Dragonborn Paladin has one, because you can't double up and both race and class offer the same picks.

This method also opens up more design space than we had before. Frex, the Human floating bonus becomes quite strong: they in theory have nine options, representing huge variety! Another: Druid, as a class feature, picks one bonus from three options, not just two, because Druids cover more archetypes, but you still only get +2, no doubling. And Monk has you pick two class bonuses from a list of three (again, no doubling.)

So not only do we preserve RABs as a source of distinctiveness, we actually improve the distinctive flexibility of Humans, and enable new, creative design along the way. Hence why I think so highly of this method: it recognizes the valid arguments for both sides and fulfills key parts of both (you can be a smart Wizard, whatever you play; RABs still matter and distinguish one race from another), and gives additional side-benefits to boot.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The ongoing trend to just remove that distinction, leads to the general 'bland' state we have going on. A halfling is never going to hold down the A gap against 2 NFL offensive linemen because the halfling is a bloody toddler, and is going to get yeeted off the field.

And yet a halfling can achieve literally precisely identical strength to a human, even without racial ability bonuses.

Even if there were still racial penalties, it would still be completely achievable. Starting 14, -2 penalty, you need 4 ASIs to get to 20; you have 5 as most classes, 6 as Rogue, 7 as Fighter. Every halfling, even if there were strength penalties, could become a world-class linebacker. And if you went Barbarian instead, a halfling Barbarian 20 can have Strength 24, making her literally stronger than any (non-Barbarian) human could ever hope to be. (And, if you were playing a Stout halfling, you could also get 22 Con and 16 Dex, making you more durable than any non-Barb human could ever be.)

Your argument does not even actually describe a fictitious alternate 5e that actively tries to enforce the kind of thing you claim matters, let alone the game that actually came out in 2014 and which was not railed against for diluting player-character ancestry to nothingness.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It really isn't.

It really is, and the fig-leaf excuse that it's theoretically possible but mostly not worth doing is exactly the problem.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because physiology is unavoidable.

Then why doesn't it limit humans too?

Which means, if you-as-player want to play a Dwarf Thief then go ahead, but your choice of species is going to fight against your choice of class. I'd rather see this than a setup where all species can equally be all classes, as that means one or the other has been watered down to the "why bother" point.

Then what you will actually see is almost no one ever playing that. Which was the whole point.

And, as noted in my post above, it is completely possible to support everyone being Basically Competent at every class, while still preserving the physiological distinctiveness of dwarves vs elves vs whatever. You just have to be willing to allow that there are solutions other than the facile one.

That depends on perspective. Dwarves among Dwarves are as individual and diverse as are Humans among Humans. But in the larger picture there's (almost always physiological) things that distinguish one species from another, and those things are often going to impact the game-related abilities of those species, for better or worse.

Except that that is simply not true--the individual variation within populations of sapient beings would almost surely be greater than the difference between their central tendencies. The bell curves almost surely will overlap. And if they do overlap, then there's no validity to the claim that physiology completely and totally determines what a species is capable of doing. It can have influence, yes--but not be ironclad destiny.

To do that requires either nerfing all other Wizards or nerfing all other Dwarves. Why on earth would I want to do that when instead I can just pull out the proud nail and carry on?

Because there are other solutions besides the facile one. Your dichotomy is false: We can avoid nerfing anything, by instead forcing players to choose between benefits. Opportunity cost is, as I've argued to you previously, a powerful design tool and an excellent way to encourage or discourage particular player behaviors. A tool that avoids both the faults of, and dislike for, things like banning and punishing.

Huh. Now that's got my interest. I'll have to keep that idea in mind - thanks.

13th Age has some genuinely brilliant design. The escalation die, the components of the Monk and Druid classes (well beyond what I mentioned above), and the RAB choice vs class ability bonus choice as mentioned above. Even if one never plays it, I think there's a good argument to be made that GMs should look over it for mechanics to borrow.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

While Dwarves don't get an intelligence bump without the Tasha's rules, Mountain Dwarves get medium armor proficiency, which by itself is a pretty decent reason to make a Dwarf Wizard.

Edit: Apparently there's even an Eberron Dwarf subrace that gets an intelligence bonus.