D&D General My Problem(s) With Halflings, and How To Create Engaging/Interesting Fantasy Races

[Don Durito]

The kind of questions being discussed, eg: whether fear effects are magical or not, halflings place in worldbuilding etc are fundamentally unanswerable in 5e.

It's clear that WotC simply does not care about worldbuilding. It's not a priority of 5th edition at all.

What they obviously do care about is whether something is cool or fun in a game.

That may be an issue for those of us who care about worldbuilding, but clearly this is not an accident of design. They may have made the Forgotten Realms the default world, but at no point have they ever, even for a moment, appeared to let that constrain them in what options they put before player characters.

Is Dragonfear a magical effect? You'll have to decide yourself. The game doesn't care.
If Halfling luck an inherent quality of the halfling species or just a thing halfling characters have? You'll have to decide yourself. The game doesn't care.
How do halfling societies interact with their neighbours. You'll have to decide yourself. The game doesn't care.

You can criticise a company for making a hammer, when you would have preferred a screwdriver, but it's a bit silly to be criticisng a hammer for being bad at screwing in a Phillips head screw.

 

[Cadence]

I've got a Dungeon of the Mad Mage where dwarves appear more times than every halfling mention in 14 modules combined. So, to me, that indicates that dwarves are pretty good for world building. there's a very large chunk of an entire module devoted to dwarves. That is what I consider to be significant. A throwaway line of "25% of villages that we cannot be bothered to give any details about or even place on the map, are halfling" isn't really significant IMO.

Wait a minute, are you saying dungeons are often under ground!?!?!

 

[carkl3000]

Again, show me the rule where it says that it's non-magical. You have assumed that anything that isn't specifically called out as magical is automatically non-magical. So, in your game I can kill undead with Dispel Magic? That Specter can walk through walls. Totally non-magical. After all, it doesn't say that it's magical. That draconic lightning breath is 100% natural. No magic there. Can I kill golems and other constructs too with Dispel Magic? That's one hell of a powerful spell isn't it? Hrmm... Ghouls paralyze by touch - totally non-magical, no poison, nothing. Just 100% non-magical paralysis by touching you. Could you let me know the chemical composition of the non-magical Gorgon breath that turns living tissue into stone? That would be one hell of a chemical. Same for a Medusa's Gaze too. Wow, that's one interesting totally non-magical effect. It can turn people to stone just by looking at them without so much as a drop of magic.

Do I really need to go on?

Maybe this will clear things up for you.

-Regarding what counts as magical for the purposes of magic resistance:

You might be thinking, “Dragons seem pretty magical to me.” And yes, they are extraordinary! Their description even says they’re magical. But our game makes a distinction between two types of magic:

• the background magic that is part of the D&D multiverse’s physics and the physiology of many D&D creatures
• the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect

In D&D, the first type of magic is part of nature. It is no more dispellable than the wind. A monster like a dragon exists because of that magic-enhanced nature. The second type of magic is what the rules are concerned about. When a rule refers to something being magical, it’s referring to that second type. Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:


• Is it a magic item?
• Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
• Is it a spell attack?
• Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
• Does its description say it’s magical?


If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.

-Regarding what can and cannot be dispelled with dispel magic:

Can you use dispel magic to dispel a magical effect like a vampire’s Charm ability or a druid’s Wild Shape?
Dispel magic has a particular purpose: to break other spells. It has no effect on a vampire’s Charm ability or any other magical effect that isn’t a spell. It also does nothing to the properties of a magic item. It can, however, end a spell cast from a magic item or from another source. Spells—they’re what dispel magic is about. For example, if you cast dispel magic on a staff of power, the spell fails to disrupt the staff’s magical properties, but if the staff’s wielder casts hold monster from the staff, dispel magic can end that spell if cast on the target of hold monster.
There are abilities and other spells that can end or suspend magical effects that aren’t spells. For example, the greater restoration spell can end a charm effect of any sort on a target (such as a vampire’s Charm or a dryad’s Fey Charm), and a paladin’s Aura of Devotion can prevent or suspend such an effect.
Three of the most versatile spells for ending certain magical effects are lesser restoration, greater restoration, and remove curse.

Can you use dispel magic on the creations of a spell like animate dead or affect those creations with antimagic field? Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend. Here’s why: the effects of an instantaneous spell are brought into being by magic, but the effects aren’t sustained by magic (see PH, 203). The magic flares for a split second and then vanishes. For example, the instantaneous spell animate dead harnesses magical energy to turn a corpse or a pile of bones into an undead creature. That necromantic magic is present for an instant and is then gone. The resulting undead now exists without the magic’s help. Casting dispel magic on the creature can’t end its mockery of life, and the undead can wander into an antimagic field with no adverse effect.
Another example: cure wounds instantaneously restores hit points to a creature. Because the spell’s duration is instantaneous, the restoration can’t be later dispelled. And you don’t suddenly lose hit points if you step into an antimagic field!
In contrast, a spell like conjure woodland beings has a non-instantaneous duration, which means its creations can be ended by dispel magic and they temporarily disappear within an antimagic field.

I don't think there's as much wiggle room here as you seem to think.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Once again, you speak from on high as if only you have the corner on facts: "... but you can't seem to accept that it doesn't make for good worldbuilding ..." What you can't seem to accept is the difference between your opinion and facts. I think halflings work just fine. If we change halflings to what you want, I would not like them and they would no longer be an iconic race.

You can't please everyone. Get over yourself.

If anyone other than me ever tried presenting their arguments with anything other than sweeping statements of my incorrectness, or if they actually engaged in any part of argument other than to dismiss it out of hand because they don't like the attitude they imagine I have, then maybe things would be going smoother.

I guess it really does just come down to this though. We aren't allowed to change halflings in the wider game. Your preference for them exactly like they were written 40 years ago takes precedence over any other possible outcome. Even if the proposed changes leave your version fully intact, it doesn't matter. WE must all acknowledge that everything is opinion and because of that your opinion gets put in the official game and our opinion is limited only to our tables.

Because the only thing you have ever criticized about my changes to halflings... is that it changes halflings.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Fine, but the result of being frightened by a Pit Fiend is determined by a game rule and a d20 roll.

Yes, and nothing about that rule or d20 makes it non-magical. OR even really addresses the points I brought up.

Like a lightswitch? Not really. Within 6 seconds? Sometimes. But that's beside the point. The designers included a game mechanic that imposes a frightened condition. The DC and some conditions like proximity or line of sight are required to make it work. There wouldn't be much to it if the text of the ability was "the target must make a saving throw to avoid being frightened if it's... I don't know... like...20 ft away? No... 25 ft away. Nevermind... you decide... let us know how it works out."

So, the fact that is works exactly like a magical aura would be expected to work doesn't matter because it had to have rules in the game? That is a rather bizarre argument. I also would note that in the vast majority of cases, those rules were for explicitly magical fear. And they all work quite similiarly. Actually, Pit Fiend fear is unique in that you can't become immune to it for 24 hours like other types of fear. And it doesn't last until you save, but until the start of your turn.

All of which hint to me that they were expecting this to be... an aura. Which is a magical effect.

Are there monsters in the game that have an ability to impose non-magical love? I forget...

I mean, I did a search through the Monster Manual. There are several creatures that have an ability that allows them to impose the "charmed" condition. In every single instance, the book says explicitly that it is a magical effect.

Do you think it's just an oversight that around half of the fear-causing abilities say that they are magical and around half don't?

Yes. Not that it matters in 99.99% of cases, because the two are identical unless you are in an anti-magic field, and even then they are effectively the same in a few cases.

I also find it an oversight that ki and Paladin Aura's aren't explicitly called out as magical. And, as to the love, you are sort of proving the point. Love and attraction is just as physiological as fear... when we want a character expeirencing that emotion we use explicitly magical effects. There are just a lot more fear effects.

That's fine. Do what you want. I just don't think your ruling is supported... but it's fine... do what you want... but you're wrong...

If all you wanted to do is make baseless accusations, why even bother engaging in a discussion at all.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah, the good ol' story.

"So, my character/the monster will do X!"

"What? No, that can't happen, it's physically impossible/not how I'd react to it"

"Okay, he magically does X . . ."

"Oh, that's fine, then"

When it comes to forcing a character to have an emotional reaction? Yes. There is a difference between "The bandits pull their swords, and approach, they outnumber you eight to one. Roll Wisdom, on a failure you are frightened of the bandits and may flee" and "The bandit pulls out a wand and points it towards you, waves of magical fear wash over you, tapping into your most primal instincts to flee and be safe. Roll Wisdom to resist, or you may be forced to flee. "

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Yes, "magical" is a special tag an ability may have that says, "you are allowed to do cool things".

 

[Don Durito]

Oh for god's sake!

Is this magical?

Menacing Attack​

When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to frighten the target. You add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll, and the target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, it is frightened of you until the end of your next turn.

There is no consistency about these things within the game. Why not? Because the game does not care.

 

[Oofta]

If anyone other than me ever tried presenting their arguments with anything other than sweeping statements of my incorrectness, or if they actually engaged in any part of argument other than to dismiss it out of hand because they don't like the attitude they imagine I have, then maybe things would be going smoother.

I guess it really does just come down to this though. We aren't allowed to change halflings in the wider game. Your preference for them exactly like they were written 40 years ago takes precedence over any other possible outcome. Even if the proposed changes leave your version fully intact, it doesn't matter. WE must all acknowledge that everything is opinion and because of that your opinion gets put in the official game and our opinion is limited only to our tables.

Because the only thing you have ever criticized about my changes to halflings... is that it changes halflings.

No, I don't need to justify halflings any more than I, and others, have.

Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.

At some point I think we all need to come to the realization that although we are speaking the same language we still can't effectively communicate with each other despite our efforts.