Design & Development: Halflings [merged]

[Cthulhudrew]

Unfortunately, a full grown grown chimp: Is about three to four times heavier than a halfling and about a foot taller.

A foot taller? Last I checked, halflings were between 3 and 4 feet tall as well.

The weight factor is a definite consideration (one that I think got nerfed quite a bit in 3E for some odd reason, though I'd have to check earlier editions to verify; I'm pretty sure they were heavier in 2E at least). Still not quite as heavy as a chimp, but we're also not talking strength on their level. If a halfling is built of more solid muscle mass- tougher skin, more dense bone structure- then they could certainly be capable of feats of human proportions, particularly in a fantasy world.

I'm not even suggesting equivalent human strength, just proportionate (the reduced lifting/carrying capacities for size would account for other factors).

So, what's your point?

There it is. ^^^

I've seen the chimp argument chucked around a few times, and I've never really understood it.

Well, I've expanded a bit more on the theory, so do with it what you will.

Chimps are significantly larger than halflings and built entirely differently.

As far as we know. I don't recall ever seeing any detailed anatomical breakdowns of halflings, but barring that, I don't think it too far out of the realm of possibility- myself- that halflings could have different anatomy than humans, despite their seeming to be just miniature humans.

For one thing, they are seemingly unable to mate with humans (unlike elves, but like dwarves), which implies that there is definitely some kind of anatomic/genetic difference. So the idea of halflings as just being small humans doesn't seem to hold up in that regard. What other ways might it be different?

Hey, didja know that pit bulls are really strong too?

Did know that. I'm saving that argument for the inevitable kobold nerf, though.

(And before anyone jumps in here, yes, I know that kobolds are reptilian. However, they have traditionally been described as doglike, in spite of that.)

 

[MaelStorm]

I mean, let's not sully this fascinating debate with unnecessary side quests. Anyone who thinks 4e will be less, rather than more, focused on killing things and taking their stuff than 3e, raise your hands. OK. Now..all of you with your hands up...My name is Prince Abeddo M'gambe of Nigeria, and I have 50 million dollars I need help getting out of the country...

IMO that is a big stretch I think.

Since when playing a game that simulates reality in a game has so much influence has loosing sight of your own conscience: I am just playing a game VS. real life.

I hate war, but that doesn't mean I am more corrupt if I simulate it playing a game.

Anyway I understand your PoV, because I prefer the talking bits than the combat bits, but the talking bits would be less fun if there wouldn't be a combat bit in between.

But be careful, when you are generalizing.

 

[Lizard]

IMO that is a big stretch I think.

Since when playing a game that simulates reality in a game has so much influence has loosing sight of your own conscience: I am just playing a game VS. real life.

I hate war, but that doesn't mean I am more corrupt if I simulate it playing a game.

Anyway I understand your PoV, because I prefer the talking bits than the combat bits, but the talking bits would be less fun if there wouldn't be a combat bit in between.

But be careful, when you are generalizing.

I cannot parse this reply at all. Sorry.

 

[MaelStorm]

I cannot parse this reply at all. Sorry.

I mean your example about the Nigerian Dictator recruiting players.

Suggesting people can become corrupt because they emphasize on violence when they're playing a game. (corrupt, having no conscience whatsoever)

Is it clearer now?

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Because a person who has lost everything an instant and is thrust into a universe he can barely understand -- and yet must make sense of to survive -- is much more interesting than someone who solves every problem by hitting it until it stops moving.

And who is to say that the character that solves things by hitting them isn't the one that has lost everything in an instant? One is a character background and the other is a method of problem solving. Having one doesn't exclude the other.

So you have played the halfling that reluctantly gets swept up in an adventure. Campaign is over, it was a blast.

Now what?

If halfling "all" want to stay home, how do you get a another halfing into the next adventure? Sure, the second one can be 'snarky' instead of 'quiet' and it can be a Wizard instead of a Rogue. But where is the plot hook? Something somewhere is going to tread on the toes of the last halfling because the race as a whole doesn't want to go on an adventure.

It's the same reason "all drow PCs are Drizzt clones" (yeah, yeah, I know not 'all' of them are but I'm sure everyone knows what I mean). If you're playing a Drow that isn't Chaotic Evil and is currently on the surface...

Changing the racial background so not "all halflings stay at home" makes it easier to work the second or third halfling into the adventure. It makes it easier to work in the new PC when the group isn't anywhere near a halfling settlement. It allows the game to make more sense when the party has had four halfling wander the countryside when "everyone knows all halflings stay at home".

 

[Lizard]

I mean your example about the Nigerian Dictator recruiting players.

Suggesting people can become corrupt because they emphasize on violence when they're playing a game. (corrupt, having no conscience whatsoever)

Is it clearer now?

Uhm...yeah.

You, uh, missed the point rather dramatically there.

Perhaps I should have said "I have a bridge I want to sell you"?

 

[MaelStorm]

Uhm...yeah.

You, uh, missed the point rather dramatically there.

Perhaps I should have said "I have a bridge I want to sell you"?

No problem, I wasn't attacking your arguments at all.

I just thought your example was stretched to the max. (Overboard)

(English is not my native tongue, sorry if I wasn't clear enough)

 

[Lizard]

Changing the racial background so not "all halflings stay at home" makes it easier to work the second or third halfling into the adventure. It makes it easier to work in the new PC when the group isn't anywhere near a halfling settlement. It allows the game to make more sense when the party has had four halfling wander the countryside when "everyone knows all halflings stay at home".

OK, see, now, this is how you make a coherent argument.

I rarely play the same race/class/archetype combo twice, so this issue never came up for me. Indeed, it's never come up in the groups I've been in...after a long campaign, most everyone is so eager to switch character roles that it's something I never considered. But I do see your point -- I know I'm somewhat unusual in that I have a stable group that plays 12-18 month campaigns, then switches to a new game with mostly the same players. Other people tend to be in shorter games or with more variable groups, so the problem of justifying the hobbit will come up a lot more often. (IOW, in our group, once someone has played one particular archetype, odds are no one else is going to for years to come, because that leads to "Oh, look, Fred's playing George's old character" kind of things, and Fred will never play the same character twice in a row, etc.)

Interesting.

I still don't like turning them all into Kender (and 3e is what started this, so I don't know why everyone thinks I'm ragging on 4e here...it's the same problem w/3e), but I do see the point. FWIW, in the all-halfling game I was in, the presumption was that halflings go through a 'wild phase' (like the Amish) in late adolescence where they all run off to have adventures; a small minority never grows out of it and becomes the leader/defender class while the vast majority run off, kill an orc or pickpocket a dwarf, then run home to become happy farmers again. This conceit allowed us to all have very different personalities beyond "reluctant hero".

 

[~Johnny~]

Yes. It's silly that chimpanzees are roughly 4 times stronger than an average human as well.

I was going to say that!

But I still think 4e halflings are meh. I've actually tried using them in a campaign I just started, and they're pretty darn boring. The fact that they all look the same (with braided hair) is going to make their art so unappealing that no one will want to play one.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Didn't Greyhawk have an entire race/culture of river humans? It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.