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

[Yaarel]

Personally, Dragonborn and Tiefling arent for me, albeit I could work with them if I customize them a bit.

I am into a dragon as a playable character, but not into the Dragonborn because it isnt draconic enough. For my own view of a dragon as primarily a monstrous serpent, the archetype must have a serpentine tail. There is no way around this for me.

I am not into the Tiefling because a devilish or demonish character appeals less to me. On the other hand, I love the concept of nature beings. The Tiefling could look a bit like Hulder, a kind of beautiful Troll in Norse-esque folkbelief. The Hulder has a prehensile cowtail, or depending on region, a foxtail, and other variants are possible. They dont have horns, but easily could because of their magic including shapeshifting, the same reason as their cowtail.

If the Dragonborn and Tiefling become part of a new core-four, I am ok with this. I feel D&D should reflect the desires of as many players as possible. If the Tiefling and Dragonborn are more popular than the Halfling, then that is the way it is.



If the Tiefling and Dragonborn would be more popular than the Elf (including Half Elf), that would be painful to me. But oh well. It would be what it would be. I love the Elf as a Brit-esque Elf (with its nocturnal darkvision and archery fetish). But I always end up needing to add a custom Norse-esque Alfar anyway. The 4e Cha-Int Eladrin were awesome for Norse-esque Alfar. I am hoping 5e Tashas can help make the Elf a bit less Brit-centric.



Old school D&D loved Brit-centric Tolkien. But also loved other things too. I wouldnt mind some old school scifi in 5e. New school D&D loves Tolkien too, but also loves other things. That is ok with me. Each generation must make the game ones own.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I shouldn't comment on responses to other people, but since most of them seem like they are leveled against me

Right? Maybe the designers don't view fear as soemthing that can only be imposed magically. Also, I wish I had fact checked the claim waaaay upthread that there aren't any nonmagical fear effects in the game, but I was too busy trying to figure out why I was supposed to care about whether Gnomes and Halflings have advantage on different effects, or whatever the hell that was about.

It started with the halfling bravery ability. I mentioned off-handedly that it was a difficult ability to RP at the table (because everyone is brave) and it spiraled into this

Don't even mention Eberron. Doesn't count because they...expanded on halflings with several distinct cultural groups that have different traditions and places in the world.

When my claim was "The RAW PHB halfling (ect)" countering with "But Eberron did" was not a valid counterpoint. Eberron, is not RAW PHB.

This has somehow turned into "They won't acknowledge Eberron" which is hilarious since I was the one who brought up Eberron first

This is, again, directly false. Specifics have been given. You tend to ignore them and then claim again that they haven't been given.

And Oofta's specifics have basically boiled down to "if you change halflings to make them interact with the world, I reject it". Which is... kind of what I was pointing out. So... not directly false.

Like, you make a whole thing of "striking out" stuff about physical descriptions and clothing (clothing is part of culture, btw), when I literally said I was leaving in anything that didn't contradict nomadic halflings. The whole point was that the entire writeup supports nomadic halflings.

You acted like nomadic halflings were unsupported in the PHB. They provably are not. "Oh but what about cellars! Gotcha!" except no, you're either being aggressively obtuse, or disingenuous, here. You really can't imagine parallel to a cellar in a wagon or on a boat? Ya ever been on a boat?

Okay, I hate calling people out, but now you are actively lying. Look back at my post. I never struck out the part about clothing, I struck out the physical descriptions. Because being 3ft tall with ruddy skin isn't part of a culture.

Also, I am not acting like nomadic halflings are unsupported. I asked, to reiterated for the 3rd time.

Does it?

Tell me about these Nomadic halflings. How are they different from the Agrarian halflings?

How are they different. You showed me a whole lot of how they are exactly the same, but I didn't ask how are they exactly the same as Agrarian halflings.

You keep accusing me of not wanting to engage in a discussion, and yet you keep refusing to actually answer the question I asked. Instead, you want to keep acting like I'm being unreasonable.

 

[carkl3000]

So... did you actually read the Sage Advice post? Here is the important bit.

"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."

That second type being, for reference "the concentrated magical energy that is contained in a magic item or channeled to create a spell or other focused magical effect"

So, dragons are magical, they exist because of their magic-enhanced nature. However they do not use "game tag magical" abilities that are concentrated magical energy used in items, spells or "other effects"

So, a dragon's fear... is magical. It just isn't concentrated magical energy. Which makes sense, it is an aura. Which is diffused. Same with a Pit Fiend. Magical, just not "#magical#gametag"

Precisely. And in the sage advice they lay out a specific test to determine whether or not a thing fits into the second category and "seems magicky to me" isn't one of the criteria.

In fact, if you want to say that the frightened condition is always magical for the purposes of your role playing, there's nothing that specifically contradicts that. But unless the effect meets one of the criteria listed for inclusion in that second category of magic, by RAW, it's an effect that can't be dispelled, anti-magiced, or resisted by magical resistance.

As an example, a character targeted by a revenant's vengeful glare:
1) Can ignore the whole thing if they are immune to paralysis.
2) Has advantage on the saving throw if resistant to paralysis.
3) Can ignore the post-paralysis frightened condition of immune to frightened.
4) Gains no benefit from Halfling's Brave feature on the saving throw against paralysis, but does have advantage on subsequent saves against the frightened condition (or straight d20 if it can see the revenant)
5) Gains no benefit from magic resistance because there is nothing in the effect's description that would include it in the type of magic that can be dispelled, anti-magiced, or resisted by magic resistance.

That's the RAW.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I mean, then just say that.

Instead of being intentionally pedantic. If you're that irritated, maybe say that, instead of continuing the interaction that is so irritating you.

You mean... just say the thing I think is my opinion, that shows a difference in culture, that is in no way written in the PHB...

I can, what does that show about the PHB? The thing we were actually talking about?

 

[carkl3000]

Sorry, but, could you tell me where those quotes are from?

Because, well, you still didn't actually answer what I said. Specific trumps general, sure. So, magic resistance resists spells. Dispel magic breaks spells. Ok. I never said that these things were spells. You the one insisting that unless they are specifically called out as magical, they are not. So, again, how does a medusa turn something to stone without using magic?

It's from the sage advice compendium.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I used the trophy example instead of gold or jewels because I interpret the treasure line not as literal money/wealth but instead something important to them.

So they might have a cameo of a loved one kept tucked in a shirt versus a portrait hung over the fireplace.

I just think it's interesting we have vastly different interpretations on it. I don't see it as a reference to a physical space or monetary wealth but instead more of a frame of mind...very opposite of dwarves who will carve a loved ones face the size of a mountain for everyone to see....

Hmm, I can see that, but I think they would show things that were important to them. I actually think halflings would be quite likely to have a corner of a house devoted to pictures of family members. They might also have collections of things, like the people who collect novelty plates or the like.

I agree with the frame of mind though, but I think it is in regards to actual wealth. Dwarves want to show you that they are wealthy, and will likely have very expensive items on display. Halflings don't care about the wealth, it is more about things of personal value.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No, there weren't.

Ah right, sorry. It was that they were the only race to believe in peace, tranquility, joy, happiness.

I have to chuckle. There is now this bizarre concept that a race that supposedly never goes to war, and is the only one, is worthless. Not even worthless, but completely unworthy. The idea is that this supposed people is so pathetic that they don't deserve to exist -- again, the affront is that they are the only race that believes in peace, tranquility, joy, happiness.

Holding this position is unfathomable, because believing both of these thoughts means that you feel that stories of peace and happiness cannot and must not exist. Holding this position is hypocritical, as you claim there is no story -- and yet you constantly repeat the story.

Heroes come from all walks of life. And if your table only has room for those who are constantly full of tragedy and violence I'm glad I don't play at it.

Strange that you don't remember this post, you did like it.

To miss a point so badly...it's truly something.

That isn't at all what the cellar thing is about, nor is it an answer to what they asked you. Their wealth isn't on display. They don't stick the amulet of pure mithral given to them by the Elf Queen when they defeated the Black Dragon Nuraltharaxithilis The Unkind on the front of their wagon or riverboat, it's in a chest, belowdeck. They don't show off the sword forged by dragonsbreath and the skill of the legendary dwarven smith, or buy a fancy scabbard for it, it's just in a leather scabbard their dad made them right next to their travel cheese knife.

uh-huh... yeah, I get that.

The point is though, why are they carrying it around? Sure, an amulet of mithril is light and easy to carry. But that isn't the only way that "wealth" can be seen. The point is that a nomadic people would have much less storage space for things. Maybe a normal halfling would roll up and store a silk tapestry inlayed with gold, but for a nomadic halfling, if they aren't going to use it, why are they carrying it around?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Opinion.. or objective truth?

Not sure why you've chosen to evade a pretty simple question.

Is a major theme of DnD about gathering power, say through something like a leveling system or an expectation to gather powerful artifacts? Fact or Opinion

That is kind of the important part of my post, and you keep evading it. Deleting it, ignoring it, ect.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I was going to say. I don't recall a Fear condition. There's Frightened, but, that's always the result of something - X happens and gives you the Frightened condition. Is there a Fear condition?

Now, the point about Gelatinous Cubes doesn't actually work since Jelly Cubes are immune to the Frightened condition. So, magic or not, nothing can grant that condition to a G. Cube.

However, funnily enough, you COULD grant the Frightened condition to a zombie. Not sure how that works without magic being involved. But, the point that was raised earlier was that the game just doesn't specify. It's up to the individual table to make a determination. Which, well, is exactly what I said earlier that it's a grey area because the rules are pretty much silent on this.

But, all that aside, I LOVE how fighters in 4e taunting an enemy to make the enemy approach the fighter was the worst thing in the world in game design!!! Come and Get It was the poster child for every 4e hater to come out and tell everyone how 4e was the worst game in the world. Yet, we've got the EXACT same thing in 5e and everyone loves it. Just makes me giggle.

The reason Zombies (and most undead) aren't immune is because Turn Undead uses the Frightened Condition.

But that is now a hilarious image, the fighter non-magically making a skeleton cower in fear.

 

[carkl3000]

...Turn Undead uses the Frightened Condition.

Not in my PHB.