They did, I'd show you the quote but I can't see it anymore.
You are using the following scenario: gnoll raiders attacking a halfling village. Fine. Accepted scenario.
We are saying that if halflings had a village in an area where gnoll attacks were a possibility, they would build defenses against the possibility and train themselves to fight. (If it wasn't gnolls but other monsters, halflings would build defenses against the possibility of those monsters attacking instead.)
You are then saying that no, this has to be a halfling village in an area that never gets gnoll attacks, but all of a sudden gets a gnoll attack. Therefore, the halfling village would be destroyed.
No. It was never specified whether the village was in an area expecting and used to such attacks or not. These changes to the initial premise came suddenly, and then were presented as though they had always been the facts. That was my complaint against them
OK, whatever. Sure. A completely undefended village will be destroyed by gnoll raiders. It doesn't matter if its a halfling village, a human village, an elf village, a village of humpty-backed camels, whatever. If you have a village with no defenses whatsoever and nobody capable of fighting invaders, then it will be destroyed by invaders.
DING DING DING!!
SHE GETS IT!!
I'm not engaging in special pleading. I'm not trying to prove halflings can't defend themselves. My entire point was, a normal everyday village, with the defenses listed, would be hard pressed to fight off a gnoll attack, and would likely be destroyed. For the entire purpose of saying "Hey, I think they need some better weapons, maybe some militia or scouts".
That was it.
I was then told that I was wrong, because this is a well-fortified village that deals with gnoll attacks all the time, and they have a death maze of cover and heavily reinforced doors and dirt rooms with no windows and on and on and on. Whereas if they would have said "Okay, your right in this scenario they would lose, but what if they..." then I would have accepted the changes and we could have discussed the most effective ways to defend a village that was prepared for such an attack.
Instead I've spent the last six posts or more defending myself because I was trying to stick to the original premise instead of making up things to gain an advantage.
However, in D&Dland, there aren't many completely undefended villages, or at least their shouldn't be, simply monsters are a threat. In addition, canonically speaking, halfling villages are well-hidden, which means they automatically have at least one layer of defense to them. Therefore, there is no such thing as a completely undefended halfling village.
I would agree with you.
I have also been told that such a premise makes my worlds death worlds where no society could ever survive. In fact, last thread I was told repeatedly that halflings would always build in the most safe areas where monsters could never threaten them, and therefore needed no defenses.
Me and you? We agree that doesn't really work.
I will add, the magically hidden village really doesn't work for me either. No matter how well you hide the homes by pretending they are hills, you still have paddocks, grazing herds of farm animals, and fields of plants being farmed. The amount of terrain advantages and lifestyle changes (no fires or fireplaces, no loud celebrations) that you would need to hide something like that is unreasonable to my mind. Especially to hide them, not from civilized people who don't know the wilderness, but from wilderness people who travel through the wilds every day of their lives looking for places to attack.
I don't want to get into this discussion, because I'm already sick of all the personal attacks, and people are going to do what they want anyways, but it does bear mentioning.
Sure whatever.
Because you are failing to realize what defenses a halfling village automatically has. They are hidden, or at least hard to spot. Their underground houses would be reinforced in only to prevent the roof from caving in when cows walk overhead. The reinforced underground houses would be a second layer of defense.
And because no village in D&Dland is going to be completely undefended, they will have additional defenses, such as reinforced doors, walls, and places to hide--in addition to watchtowers or other means to spot invaders early, and training halflings in a militia. The Welsh longbowmen started from the age of 7, according to the internets. I see no reason why people of any race, including halflings, couldn't be similar.
The roof being reinforced means they doors are reinforced? Why? Is the cow walking through the doors to?
And I wasn't supposed to assume "DnDland" levels of threat in the world. I agree with you that that all sounds reasonable, but I've been told that I'm not supposed to raise the threat level that high or I'm being unreasonable. Heck, I was accused of it anyways.
Int 8 is still lower than the halfling's average of 10.
So halflings are smarter and that means that gnolls can't be better at destroying things? 6 yr olds can play whack-a-mole. The idea of "don't shoot til you see them" isn't so difficult that someone of below average intelligence can't grasp it.
Think of it this way: you're a gnoll. All you know is hunger, madness, and the need to DESTROY!!! It's so intense that it completely overwhelms you in all ways: you have no culture, no friendships, no concept of leisure, no personality of your own. You're a demon in all ways but creature type. You effectively have overwhelming, uncontrollable OCD, where your obsessive-compulsion is to murder things.
Do you... spend your time searching for hidden halfling holes which you couldn't enter even if you wanted to because you're too big, or do you go to the much easier human targets down the road, who live in nice, big, obvious houses made of flammable wood?
I destroy what I a come across. You don't need to be actively searching for halflings in particular.
Again, the premise was "normal halfling village being raided by gnolls" I never stated it was "gnolls hunt all halflings to extinction" or anything else that makes your question relevant. It doesn't matter for the scenario we were discussing why or how the gnolls are attacking. They were. If you want to put forth that a halfling village is safe if it is hidden, and destroyed if it is found, then great, but trying to say I've been unreasonable because I addressed the scencario being discussed is wrong.
No. People who are well-prepared are less likely to lose. And there's nothing that says that halflings can't have allies or defenses. Monsters can. There's been many an article and supplement written combining different types of monsters that work effectively together., after all.
You seem to want halflings to have nothing but their shortbows when fighting against gnolls. That is special pleading.
No, that is basing off the scenario described. If you wanted to discuss halflings and their pet ankheg hive then you needed to present a new premise, not act as though that was part of the original premise.
Slings are weapons, not defenses. Walls are defenses. Places to hide are defenses. Living underground is a defense. Allied monsters are defenses. Watchtowers are defenses.
None of which were presented and many of which I've been told in the past are not allowed.
Good lord, I practically have scars from people's reactions last thread when I DARED suggest halflings might have a wall around their village.
The premise was slings were their defenses. I engaged on those terms.
And I bet they live in D&Dland, where even the grass can be deadly.
A concept I've been raked over the coals for before. I love how I'm the bad guy for not engaging in the level of threat I presented last time, which got me eviscerated. Bet as soon as I engage that concept, I'm right back to being called unreasonable.
It should be the standard for D&Dland villages. D&D has a bad habit of not taking their own monster books into consideration. For instance, most D&D castles are still very vulnerable to aerial attack. Not a problem in the real world when castles were built; a major problem in a land where you can ride hippogriffs.
Agreed. I am not supposed to engage with that idea though. That's assuming a death world. (Are you noticing a pattern here? We agree, I was just told not to take things at this value last time. Because that was unreasonable. Now, it is unreasonable to not engage with these ideas.)
I wasn't aware that snakes and spiders were insane creatures of demonic evil. I always thought they were just cute li'l animals.
You keep bringing up INT 6. Orcus is an insane creature of demonic evil too... but he can make a plan.
Your deathworld is literally that: unprotected, undefended halflings living out in the open on a plain where everyone can see them, while only barely armed, apparently to prove the point that... what, halflings are worthless? That they can't defend themselves when they have nothing to defend themselves with?
That is entirely different from halflings taking reasonable precautions to avoid monster attack.
Which was the premise I was given. And no, I've never stated they are worthless, that they can't defend themselves or that they have nothing to defend themselves with.
My entire point was "halflings+slings and that is it" is inadequate. IF you agree, then great! We agree. Problem solved.
Seriously. What do you imagine that a halfling village would be like in your world?
I'm already late to work, so I'll put a pin in this (should have left 15 minutes ago, but I was trying to finish responding)
