"I think Hydrogen is a rare element" and other science facts.

[Laurefindel]

Wait how does 2024 differ on halflings?

It’s more of a systemic change as a whole, but (before Tasha) halflings didn’t have access to strength ASI and small creatures couldn’t use heavy weapons, which in turn soft-locked them out of high-damage builds and Great-Weapon Master feat builds.

I feel something changed about small creatures and grappling, but I can’t remember what exactly.

On the plus side, halflings can now make decent barbarians, which is cool (and surely intended) , but I would have preferred changes to the barbarian.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I played a halfling barbarian in 5.0, and while it wasn't min-maxed good, it was still a perfectly viable character.

Honestly, I much prefer real mechanical differences between ancestries, and that includes halflings being weaker than humans. It's not nearly as fun to play against type when doing so costs you nothing.

 

[billd91]

Ogres are Large giants and have (at least in 5.14) Strength 19, and it's not even slightly difficult for a Medium human to get Strength 20.

It's not even slightly difficult for a PC to get strength 20 - PCs are not your average Joe.

 

[Mannahnin]

It's a fair cop, guv. Yeah, it's attar of roses or rose otto, but not otto of roses.

I learned a new thing today!

 

[Faolyn]

Yes. Which is a bit strange and I'd give them higher strength. Then again, if we assume 19 is the average ogre strength, they're still significantly stronger than humans on average.

Problem is that is that hill giants (which I find to be redundant with ogres anyway) have a Strength only two points higher, despite being Huge. And if you push that up, then you quickly run into the other giants, and then into the bounded accuracy ceiling of 30 in a stat. And that means the strongest of all giants, the storm giant (at 26 feet tall, at least in 5.14) has Strength 29, while the tarrasque, which is nearly twice as tall (50' feet), has Strength 30.

Stats in D&D are a mess. There is literally no way to make them "realistic" through numerical bonuses and penalties. It's why I prefer using traits, like how Small folks can't use heavy weapons without penalty.

 

[Faolyn]

It's not even slightly difficult for a PC to get strength 20 - PCs are not your average Joe.

Sure.

Which is the other reason I don't think halflings and other Small folks should have a Strength penalty. Even if the entire party is made of nothing but halflings with high Strength scores--which would be a vanishingly rare occurrence--the GM still controls every other halfling in the universe by dint of them being NPCs.

Edit: And conversely, even if everyone wants to play orcs or goliaths who made Strength their dump stat, the GM can still make every NPC orc or goliath into ultimate bodybuilders.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Problem is that is that hill giants (which I find to be redundant with ogres anyway) have a Strength only two points higher, despite being Huge.

I agree with you on ogres and hill giants. I just eliminated the hill giants.

And if you push that up, then you quickly run into the other giants, and then into the bounded accuracy ceiling of 30 in a stat. And that means the strongest of all giants, the storm giant (at 26 feet tall, at least in 5.14) has Strength 29, while the tarrasque, which is nearly twice as tall (50' feet), has Strength 30.

Stats in D&D are a mess. There is literally no way to make them "realistic" through numerical bonuses and penalties. It's why I prefer using traits, like how Small folks can't use heavy weapons without penalty.

Yes, sure. But notice how the bigger things that supposedly are stronger in fiction still tend to have higher strength score than smaller things. Like there is some connection to the fiction, and I think that is better than none. To me it is not logical to say that because this doesn't make perfect sense it would be just the same if goblins and cloud giants had the same strength scores.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure.

Which is the other reason I don't think halflings and other Small folks should have a Strength penalty. Even if the entire party is made of nothing but halflings with high Strength scores--which would be a vanishingly rare occurrence--the GM still controls every other halfling in the universe by dint of them being NPCs.

Edit: And conversely, even if everyone wants to play orcs or goliaths who made Strength their dump stat, the GM can still make every NPC orc or goliath into ultimate bodybuilders.

Ok, but certainly the same logic applies to all the species traits then? Like if I want to have halfling that was raised in Underdark and has adapted to have dark vision, why cannot I have that? If every PC is an unique exceptional individual that doesn't need to conform what is normally possible to their species, then why the hell we even have dedicated rules splats for the species? Why not just have a bunch of traits and bonuses people can choose and can fluff however they wish?

 

[James Gasik]

In AD&D, Gnomes, which are only a little bigger than Halflings, do not have a Strength penalty. In 1e, their maximum Strength was 18/50. In 2e, it was 18/00.

1e Ogres didn't even have 18/00 Strength either

Though in the Complete Book of Humanoids, a PC Ogre could have 20 Strength.

Now, if AD&D was meant to simulate our real-world physics, it seems odd, doesn't it? There's no explanation for super strong Gnomes, yet they existed in the PHB. Yet I never heard anyone arguing about Gnomes being "unrealistic" or somehow verisimiltude-breaking. It's always the Halflings.

And it's hard to argue that this was a mistake, as Gnomes being nearly as to as strong as Humans persisted for two editions; it wasn't until WotC came in and decided Small creatures should have -2 Strength...

Oh but wait. They didn't decide that. Actually, Small creatures, by the monster rules, have -4 Strength compared to Medium ones! You can see this with Kobolds in 3e. Which means that, actually, 3e Halflings and Gnomes have +2 Strength, modified for their size!

D&D physics aren't our physics. There's a lot of examples. I'm not going to dictate how someone wants to play the game, or tell them what their preferences are. You want Halflings to be unable to be played at your tables or have harsh limitations, have at it! And have fun!

But let's not say this is about how realistic the game should be, when D&D has rarely been realistic about this topic. Gnomes and Halflings are either A) much stronger than their size would indicate or B) the Strength score isn't cut and dry about what it means- ie, smaller things should be a lot weaker and bigger things should be a lot stronger, but it was decided to not be realistic in order to make the game balanced as a game. So you could play a heroic Hobbit and be able to contribute as well as your bigger friends. So an Ogre wouldn't have bonuses to damage that would make it far too threatening to be a early game enemy.

(EDIT: took the word "realism" out of first sentence of last paragraph.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

In AD&D, Gnomes, which are only a little bigger than Halflings, do not have a Strength penalty. In 1e, their maximum Strength was 18/50. In 2e, it was 18/00.
View attachment 401742
1e Ogres didn't even have 18/00 Strength either
View attachment 401743
Though in the Complete Book of Humanoids, a PC Ogre could have 20 Strength.

Now, if AD&D was meant to simulate our real-world physics, it seems odd, doesn't it? There's no explanation for super strong Gnomes, yet they existed in the PHB. Yet I never heard anyone arguing about Gnomes being "unrealistic" or somehow verisimiltude-breaking. It's always the Halflings.

And it's hard to argue that this was a mistake, as Gnomes being nearly as to as strong as Humans persisted for two editions; it wasn't until WotC came in and decided Small creatures should have -2 Strength...

Oh but wait. They didn't decide that. Actually, Small creatures, by the monster rules, have -4 Strength compared to Medium ones! You can see this with Kobolds in 3e. Which means that, actually, 3e Halflings and Gnomes have +2 Strength, modified for their size!

D&D physics aren't our physics. There's a lot of examples. I'm not going to dictate how someone wants to play the game, or tell them what their preferences are. You want Halflings to be unable to be played at your tables or have harsh limitations, have at it! And have fun!

But let's not say this is about how realistic the game should be, when D&D has rarely been realistic about this topic. Gnomes and Halflings are either A) much stronger than their size would indicate or B) the Strength score isn't cut and dry about what it means- ie, smaller things should be a lot weaker and bigger things should be a lot stronger, but it was decided to not be realistic in order to make the game balanced as a game. So you could play a heroic Hobbit and be able to contribute as well as your bigger friends. So an Ogre wouldn't have bonuses to damage that would make it far too threatening to be a early game enemy.

(EDIT: took the word "realism" out of first sentence of last paragraph.)

It is possible for someone to want the game to be more realistic even in ways it never has been particularly. So yes, it absolutely can be about how realistic the game should be.