Halflings and kobolds should fo definitelyAs a frequent halfling/hobbit/pech player, I've looked at them primarily as filling the niche of being over their head (literally), but surviving due to preserverance and luck. They're the underdog ancestry.
I find the niche difference between goblins and kobolds to be just as miniscule as gnomes and halflings. I'd feel no strong loss if gnomes and kobolds disappeared entirely.
So you're saying that halflings need better innate abilities? That's doable, although I'd say their innate luck is a pretty big deal already.The redundant feeling some have of Halfling is that their race feels just like a culture and one that a human or gnome can easily replicate.
I think a lot of this has to do with how deep one wants to get into immersion. Playing a truly non-human character is difficult, and most films and tv shows aren't really all that good at doing it. Some (most, I would guess) people just want the imaginative fun of playing an elf or a dwarf, but don't really care about the deep psychology of it.I will say I have noticed a division in previous conversations (not just here) between those who want high-concept races and those who are satisfied with the differences being basically cosmetic. I feel a little mismatch between myself and one of the GMs I play under because when he designs custom races, he goes for the high-concept, and I sometimes find them more stifling than liberating to play.
It's just a matter of taste.
You literally just used the Appeal to Tradition fallacy to try and justify a part of D&D. D&D used to have THAC0, but it dropped that. By your reasoning, we shouldn't even have a 5e, D&D should still be stuck in its original form, with no development ever happening to it.If your best argument against some part of D&D is "This is in D&D for no better reason than it's a traditional part of D&D", you have successfully made an absolute, ironclad, and unassailable argument for keeping it.
Ah, no. That's what happens when you try to make D&D a video game. Also, there were a lot of things from 4e that were highly popular, some of them still continuing into 5e (like Dragonborn and Tieflings).We know what happens to D&D when you approach it with the view of making every element positively justify its inclusion, and changing it until it did so. It was called Fourth Edition.
I'm not sure what this type of fallacy is, but if feels like a bit of Retrospective Determinism, so it's probably some variant of it. "This thing exists, so we might as well have it" isn't that compelling of an argument for keeping that thing, IMO.As for the topic of 'why have halflings,' I dunno, why have dogs? Why have anything? There's no guarantee that the planet earth would have ostriches, but we do.
Why have the town of Vaughan, Mississippi? It doesn't even have a gas station. It's not important to the world. It's just a thing that exists, that probably won't matter. Except one time I really had to use the bathroom on a road trip, and I pulled off there, and got really annoyed that there was no public restroom anywhere, so I had to get back on the interstate and drive a half hour to the next rest stop. It was unimportant other than as a tiny vignette.
You don't have to justify anything. Stuff just sometimes exists.
I think all the races need better innate abilities. The halfling just more so because their racial ability is both unrealiable and uncontrollable. So you can easily go long stretches without displaying your halflingness.So you're saying that halflings need better innate abilities? That's doable, although I'd say their innate luck is a pretty big deal already.
This is a bit of a category error, though. THAC0 is a rule, halflings are a race - part of the lore. Lore sometimes changes, but it is generally by addition, thus the "heapish" nature of D&D lore.
There‘s a difference between elements of a game that are mechanical/technical and elements that are lore and character. Each type of element should be looked at differently as far as whether they are core to D&D‘s character. Descending AC and THAC0 were replaceable by ascending AC and an attack bonus because the latter two were improvements to the usability of the game. AC itself and how it is used is much harder to replace by armor as damage reduction. It’s far more core to the D&D experience and its identity. And that’s closer to the scrutiny changes to the core races should receive, not the relatively easily supplantable technology of the THAC0.
Not really, no. Sometimes “this has always been a part of the game“ is a perfectly fine argument, particularly any element that contributes the game’s identity. Sometimes the sacred cows exist for a reason, because it wouldn‘t really be D&D without it.The point of saying "this only exists because of tradition" is to show that there's not really any value to it besides nostalgia (and I'm too young to have nostalgia for LotR-style D&D games). If the best argument for including a race in the game is "this has always been a part of the game", IMO, that's a flaw.
psst, tieflings appeared in 2e.Ah, no. That's what happens when you try to make D&D a video game. Also, there were a lot of things from 4e that were highly popular, some of them still continuing into 5e (like Dragonborn and Tieflings).
I think your emphasis on mechanics is where you go astray in your Anti-Halfling Agenda (AHA...haha). Meaning, if D&D were simply a collection of rules and mechanics, it might make sense. But it is far more than that.IMO, the best bar to reach is "this race fulfills both important and unique narrative and mechanical niches that can enhance fun more than races lacking these characteristics". That's my point. They exist for a perfectly acceptable reason, but that doesn't mean that it's a good reason to warrant their existence.