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

[Chaosmancer]

I can't tell. Is this nit-picking.

Because, unless I've badly misunderstood your posts, your stated position is that, as written, halflings are narratively/thematically objectively unsuitable for D&D as a game.

Folks have had varying arguments regarding suitability generally, but I believe that no matter the individual opinions in that regard, the one consistent pushback has been that no personal opinion represents objective truth.

If you are now saying that this is not your perspective, then you should receive a lot less resistance, as most of us realize that reasonable people may disagree.

That said, if that has been the case the whole time, then you should revisit your tactics used to combat misunderstanding, as I don't think there has been any ambiguity in how we've interpreted your position.

You did badly misunderstand.

I said that Halflings as written are meant to be Hobbits. Hobbits worked well in Tolkien as is, because Tolkien has specific themes he was trying to get across (such as the most moral thing that defeats evil being the rejection of power). Hobbits do not work well in DnD, because the themes of DnD are vastly different (such as the accumulation of power to defeat evil)

I never once stated that halflings are objectively bad Player Characters. That is absurd. They make perfectly fine Player Characters. The lore of the race doesn't work like intended, because it seems like they really just wanted to copy Hobbits, and Hobbits don't work as a race in DnD.

 

[carkl3000]

And you also aren't a veteran warrior who has stared down and dealt death a hundred times before. Or do you think cops "pee their pants" when they see a guy with a gun. Or Marines. Or the Swiss Guard.

Sure... all cops and marines are "immune to frightened condition." Give me a break.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I couldn't find the rule about that googling around either... but lots of threads where a lot of people thought there was one. (Did 1e have social skills?).



I'm not sure. I'm not a big fan of the PCs getting gonzo social reactions from NPCs if it doesn't make sense, just because they got a huge social skill roll -- and so probably wouldn't let the PCs auto-succeed either if it wasn't something that made sense in story.

So, no, they're not going to convince the legendary royal gatekeeper to make an exception so they can use the chamber pot no matter how well they roll. But they might very well distract the gatekeeper for a few seconds. So I don't see the NPC getting the party to completely give up the chase, but I can see a good enough NPC roll and failed roll on the part of the party being enough to hold them up a few seconds as they're momentarily startled, letting whoever they're chasing get further away (a mental version of throwing a physical obstacle in their way and them failing the roll to just jump over it).

The way I think about intimidation is akin to deception. The idea is that an intimidation check is used to convey the intent and ability to do harm to another character.

With a successful check, the other character believes the threat. As a PC, if another character makes a successful check, contested by your insight, whether you decide the PC is afraid or not, the PC believes the threat is valid.

 

[Faolyn]

I explained already in another post. The Monster Manual distinguishes between magical fear and non-magical fear. Nalfeshnee's Horror Nimbus? Magical. Beholder's Fear Ray? Magical. Banshee's Horrifying Visage? not Magical. Pit Fiend's Fear Aura? not Magical. If you don't distinguish, that's your homebrew.

Doesn't matter to Chaosmancer. A couple of weeks ago (way back on page 84), I pointed out places where the frightened condition called for a save other than Will (such as with a demilich), pointing out how halflings would get the bonus to save against it but gnomes wouldn't. Didn't matter. Chaosmancer is convinced that all things that cause the frightened condition are magical in nature because that's the only thing that explains why the valiant orc barbarian would run away from a dragon while the halfling wouldn't.

They also seem to think that having nonmagical effects that cause the frightened condition is "homebrewing" and therefore you're not allowed to bring them into consideration when discussing halflings because reasons. They grudgingly allowed it for orange grungs, who cause fear on a failed Con save, because that was poison.

 

[Gammadoodler]

You did badly misunderstand.

I said that Halflings as written are meant to be Hobbits. Hobbits worked well in Tolkien as is, because Tolkien has specific themes he was trying to get across (such as the most moral thing that defeats evil being the rejection of power). Hobbits do not work well in DnD, because the themes of DnD are vastly different (such as the accumulation of power to defeat evil)

I never once stated that halflings are objectively bad Player Characters. That is absurd. They make perfectly fine Player Characters. The lore of the race doesn't work like intended, because it seems like they really just wanted to copy Hobbits, and Hobbits don't work as a race in DnD.

It's weird to see a claim that you've badly misunderstood something...

followed immediately by a near exact restatement of your expressed understanding...

followed immediately by a defense against an argument you didn't make..

Should have known better.

 

[Yaarel]

The way I think about intimidation is akin to deception. The idea is that an intimidation check is used to convey the intent and ability to do harm to another character.

With a successful check, the other character believes the threat. As a PC, if another character makes a successful check, contested by your insight, whether you decide the PC is afraid or not, the PC believes the threat is valid.

The intimidator need not look intimidating.

Saying something like, "If you do that, then people will look at you funny," is also roll for an Intimidation skill check.

Basically, playing on someones fears is an Intimidation skill.

 

[Yaarel]

I didnt really notice the difference between monsters that cause fear magically and nonmagically.

But if a creature becomes Bloodied, I rule, an Intimidation check can attempt to force surrender or frighten away, thus ending combat nonlethally.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I explained already in another post. The Monster Manual distinguishes between magical fear and non-magical fear. Nalfeshnee's Horror Nimbus? Magical. Beholder's Fear Ray? Magical. Banshee's Horrifying Visage? not Magical. Pit Fiend's Fear Aura? not Magical. If you don't distinguish, that's your homebrew.

Weird, I wonder why non-magical fear of a monster doesn't trigger if you are 21 ft away from it. And it only works if they start their turn within 20 ft, ending within 20 ft doesn't trigger it. Also, they are only frightened until the start of their next turn. So, after being frightened for 6 seconds, if I move back a single foot, I'm no longer scared.

This sounds it is clearly not a magical aura that only affects a certain area at all. /Heavy Sarcasm

Yeah, it doesn't say "magical" but it doesn't say Paladin auras are magical either, yet I've never heard a good explanation why standing next to one makes your body process poison faster.

Except apparently, for you, when magic is involved.

Yes, because magic isn't taking away their autonomy to decide their character's emotional state, it is overriding it. I'm also fine with fear from poisons and drugs for the same reason.

I'm saying that one does not need to invoke magic to impose fear. People in the real world don't get to choose when they are or are not terrified to the point of being incapacitated just the same as they don't get to choose whether or not they are knocked out cold by a baseball bat to the head.

Right. They also don't get to choose that their parents were happily married until their mother left to go on an adventure and never returned, so you left home to go and find her and make sure she is safe.

Players get to determine the inner world and backstory of their characters. End of sentence. Unless magic is involved on some level, I do not tell my players how to react, or how to feel.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The intimidator need not look intimidating.

Saying something like, "If you do that, then people will look at you funny," is also roll for an Intimidation skill check.

Basically, playing on someones fears is an Intimidation skill.

Agreed. I didn't just mean harm in a physical sense, could also be social, psychological, etc, just that you can do that harm, and intend to.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure... all cops and marines are "immune to frightened condition." Give me a break.

On what? I never said cops and marines can't be scared, just that someone pulling a gun likely did not cause them the same incapacitating fear you claim you would feel.

You are the one trying to twist this