D&D 5E Halfling Barbarians-Finally a edition that lets the monster out of it's cage.

[GameOgre]

its not arbitrary at all. In fact I thought the distinction is pretty clear. In a world where a person can learn to hurl lighting bolts, they can learn to do superhuman feats of strength too. But both require training. That's completely separate from having an innate power. Neither is born with the superhuman traits.

Well,we can just agree to disagree(about limits on core book races) but what I can agree with you about is.....Rule the game however it makes you happy. Sincerely, its not that big a deal. So halflings and gnomes will not be barbarians(too much of the barb is all about strength),ok I can live with that without a problem if I was playing in your game.

Heck I run a character in a DCCRPG game where all Halflings are classed as Halfling!

It's much better for a good DM to alter his house rules so he is happy with whatever system is in use that to suffer through things he can't really stomach. I found that out the hard way during my rules heavy rpg days.

The best rpg in the world will suck if the DM isn't excited by it.

 

[TrippyHippy]

In that case, your medium-sized and smaller adventurers really should be running the other direction every time they see a Troll, Wyvern, Ogre, or Dragon, because non-cartoony or non-cinematic physics dictates there’s not a darned thing a human or smaller could do to these 8 foot to 50 foot behemoths with puny Greatswords or Bows.

Well, yes there is because every creature has a weakness of some sort (ask Beowulf!). But it’s a question of using finesse, accuracy, expertise and skill to defeat them, rather than simply outmuscling them.

For them to be able to even exist, they would have to have denser flesh, bones, and hides than real world creatures, and have strength greater than what their scores would indicate just to stand up or take flight.
As I said, look at it too closely with those pesky Biology degrees and square-cube laws, and this whole thing falls apart. It always has, not just from 4e or 3e, but ever since the days of "How heavy is my giant?" From dragon magazine back in the day.

Possibly - although we do have had very large creatures on Earth, possibly not Dragon sized, but I think an elephant compares pretty well to a Troll or an Ogre say?

And like I say, I do recognise that D&D operates a lot on abstract measures and the like - although it does exacerbate issues when they then use measures on things like lifting and carrying based on Strength values. I do recall some Dragon article about ‘how heavy is my giant?’ from way back - but I didn’t think it’s arguments were especially good I have to say. And yes, when the scale stops at 30 and still has to include creatures such as a Dragon it obviously doesn’t bear too much scrutiny - but for me, the important thing is to not draw too much attention to it and a high Strength Halfling PC tends to do that!

 

[SirAntoine]

Consider level limits for halflings and other demihumans.

 

[Minsc]

Consider level limits for halflings and other demihumans.

...aaaand we've come full circle.

 

[Sacrosanct]

. So halflings and gnomes will not be barbarians(too much of the barb is all about strength),
.

Nope. plenty of halfling barbarians. Not everyone plays a class/race combo based on the optimization. Just like there were plenty of halfling fighters in 1e. Shocker, I know.

Heck, just yesterday I posted my own halfling barbarian, and he wasn't strength based at all. Still perfectly viable and fun to play.

 

[Henry]

Well, yes there is because every creature has a weakness of some sort (ask Beowulf!). But it’s a question of using finesse, accuracy, expertise and skill to defeat them, rather than simply outmuscling them.

Possibly - although we do have had very large creatures on Earth, possibly not Dragon sized, but I think an elephant compares pretty well to a Troll or an Ogre say?

Not really, because an elephant has to be a quadruped to hold that much weight - it would injure its legs if it were built to stand on hind legs as an ogre or troll. Creatures such as whales and the larger dinosaurs of the past must live most of their lives in water in order to balance their weight. I'm no expert, but I've seen these arguments by people who were students of biology and physics on these very forums and others. Some REALLY dry stuff. Dry enough for me to learn not to worry about the physics of halflings anyway.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Not really, because an elephant has to be a quadruped to hold that much weight - it would injure its legs if it were built to stand on hind legs as an ogre or troll. Creatures such as whales and the larger dinosaurs of the past must live most of their lives in water in order to balance their weight. I'm no expert, but I've seen these arguments by people who were students of biology and physics on these very forums and others. Some REALLY dry stuff. Dry enough for me to learn not to worry about the physics of halflings anyway.

Considering I teach Biology and Physics, I guess it may be an area I’m interested in!

Elephants can rear up on two legs. The quadraped aspect of their design is not a biomechanical necessity anymore than a household cat running around on all fours. The bipedal design of a humanoid is the unusual thing, evolutionary speaking, but the classic example of a T-Rex suggests it’s not a physical impossibility for larger creatures too.

 

[SirAntoine]

Considering I teach Biology and Physics, I guess it may be an area I’m interested in!

Elephants can rear up on two legs. The quadraped aspect of their design is not a biomechanical necessity anymore than a household cat running around on all fours. The bipedal design of a humanoid is the unusual thing, evolutionary speaking, but the classic example of a T-Rex suggests it’s not a physical impossibility for larger creatures too.

Being able to rear up is nothing. The animal needs its four legs to support its weight over the course of its life.

 

[Henry]

Considering I teach Biology and Physics, I guess it may be an area I’m interested in!

Elephants can rear up on two legs. The quadraped aspect of their design is not a biomechanical necessity anymore than a household cat running around on all fours. The bipedal design of a humanoid is the unusual thing, evolutionary speaking, but the classic example of a T-Rex suggests it’s not a physical impossibility for larger creatures too.

I know Elephants can rear, they just can't maintain it for long. And the T-Rex really isn't equivalent to the erect posture of humanoids, because last I heard they walked using the tail as ballast for their heads, something we don't do.

I don't agree there's no biomechanical reason we don't have larger bipeds - energy consumption is one, and stress on joints is another; a humanoid scaled up to that size could not support itself, and even if it could its joints would deteriorate over time carrying that much weight. Elephants can sleep standing up, and their legs are built like shock absorbers - that tells quite a bit about what it takes to support that kind of weight....

...and here I am, talking about humanoid, quadruped, and therapod biomechanics at 2am in a thread about halflings. Sigh.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Being able to rear up is nothing. The animal needs its four legs to support its weight over the course of its life.

That is not the point at all. The point is that the reason why they are quadrupedal is because they evolved that way, not because of the impossibility of a creature of that mass being bipedal. Bipeds evolved from quadrupeds not the other way round.