I suggested to Chaosmancer the idea that halflings could be considered the best farmers and chefs (in the same way that dwarfs are considered the best miners and smiths), or that city-dwelling humans could rely on halflings to do the farming for them. And Chaosmancer decided that I meant that they could be the only farmers.
One person said it could mean nothing.Maybe, but how do most people know that stout halflings have poison resistance? And why would they assume dwarves instead of something else.
And again, why write it in the book, if it isn't true and means nothing?
No, they didn't. they said that you could make such a world, if you wanted to, and it wouldn't be out of line with the PHB lore, and I'm pretty sure they didn't actually say that they would be the only farmers, just that many human cities might rely on halfling farmers.That was something that Faolyn brought up. Since halflings are the only race that is explicitly stated as farming, then we could assume a world where halflings are the only farmers and control the world's food supply.
No, it isn't. You're jumping to that as if it is a necessarily conclusion, but it is not. "laid back friendly farmers" is a quick description, not some sort of literal statement of exactly what all halflings are. It's what their vibe is, in general. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time distinguishing between general ideas about things that are common, and universal literal statements of absolute facts about all halflings.Of course if we don't assume they are the only farmers and that they are more than that, then that line I was given "laid back farmers who are friendly" is reduced to "laid back [people] who are friendly"
Did you poll a significant number of people? I only ever saw one person reply to you about that, so where are you getting "everyone" from? Why are you so bent on this throwaway line? Stout halflings resemble dwarves more than they do humans, in some ways, and people in the world take note of that and wonder why. What is confusing about that? I genuinely don't understand why these things bother or confuse you, in part because you refuse to extrapolate your reasoning for anything without hyperbolic melodrama.The only one that is ever mentioned is that stout halflings have dwarven blood. And everyone is certain that it is utterly meaningless and has nothing to do with anything... so why did they put it in the book? There are lots of fake rumors that they could have added to lots of races, but the only one they did it for was the halflings? Why?
I actually am working on a short story campaign (ie, we are not playing 1-20 sandbox game, it's a limited campaign with a more narrow premise) where they play the protectors of an empire in the Ancient Persian style of governance (ie essentially federalism with kings), and that empire is ruled primarily by halflings, because every time the various kingdoms went to war, halflings rolled their eyes and kept society functioning, and kept being the ones bringing warring factions to the table to hammer out a peace, and also tended to be the people in bureaucratic positions of practical utility, and essentially accidentally took over a large swath of the known world through quiet competence and level headedness. And most people are fine with it, because, well, they're very good rulers, and there are bad greedy violent High Kings extremely rarely.I'm not reading this whole thread, as this debate seems a little bit like it has an obvious answer...
But I want to say, a setting in which the halflings are the only race that can master mass-production of food through agriculture and therefore have a ton of leverage over all of urban society functioning, and therefore a ton of power... it's a pretty interesting premise!
Let’s focus on your last statement for a second, because I think it really gets at the heart of the issue. You’ve positioned yourself as the arbiter of which distinctive traits are sufficient to differentiate halflings from humans to a satisfactory standard. Apparently supernatural luck, courage, tenacity, nimbleness, physical differences (size, body proportions, pointy ears, walking speed), stealthiness, a tendency to blend into the background, a love of creature comforts and cozy places, a tendency toward open-mindedness and being welcoming, and the various other traits that have been mentioned in this thread and/or the source material don’t pass muster for you. Fine, that’s your prerogative. Apparently, a similar list of differences between goats and horses does meet your standards. Okay, no problem.
The issue is how you’ve presented these subjective judgments as the objective truth, when they’re nothing of the sort. You keep insisting that we have some kind of burden to refute your assertion that these differences aren’t good enough, as if it’s not just a matter of differing preferences.
I literally have no idea how the concept that the various "humanoid" races could be considered "basically human" is so difficult for you? The name is on the goddamn tin.
Separately, you realize your comparison of rhino, horse and goat is like a perfect analog to the halfling conversation we're currently having right?
You say it would be insane to state that there are no significant differences between the three of those creatures but your argument for halflings being basically human is perfectly rational.
The part I dismissed as conjecture includes dragonborn facial anatomy, and racial patterns of conversation. It's the same type of conjecture that leads people to conclude that centaurs cannot climb. It's just the lens you use to view creatures. It's neither factual, nor universal.
The city building would also be my conjecture, but... they take up less space, weigh less, and their stuff weighs less so yes, smaller structures, but also lighter weight materials, longer spans, etc. It also means that halfling dwellings can exist in more locations both underground and above it, for example as tree houses, on cliff faces, etc. In addition, they have a wider variety of creatures that can serve as mounts, with all the agility, speed, and carrying capacity benefits mounts can provide, with far fewer of the burdens so structures and spaces can afford to be generally more accommodating to creatures used as mounts. Do you see how all this starts adding together? Ultimately, I think you are vastly underselling how important scale is to how we live. I mean, would you say that giants are just big humans?
If you start layering in considerations for how an innately sociable race, that values having a good time, is lucky, nimble, and less susceptible to fear might choose to live...yeah...verrry different.
Buuut.. all of that..is also conjecture, so I'm not going to claim it as absolute truth.
I've positioned myself as having an opinion, yes. I think my opinion is right, because I support it with evidence. And whenever someone decides I am wrong... they just say I am wrong and don't really support their points with anything at all.
Sure, and the gaps are 100% in the DMs control. Exactly as I stated in the first place.