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

[Cadence]

Not sure if it was mentioned for the whole frightened thing, but Barbarian Berserkers can frighten as an action at level 10, it seems to be non-magical the way it's written.

I wonder if it only being "frightened" in the mechanical sense and and not requiring an emotional reaction helps for those who don't want PCs to experience such things? (It could be reskinned as something more palatable in terms of explaining the reaction).

 

[carkl3000]

I feel empathy for your daughter's phobia.

The decision of whether or not my character has ‎Daemonophobia is my own....

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

Also, "the wasp flies away" doesn't indicate to me that she is suddenly less scared like a lightswitch went off when it gets a certain distance away, but rather that it leaving the area makes her feel more at ease. She would never, I assume, decide to go charging a wasp's nest with the desire to enact vengeance upon them. Her fear is real, even if she isn't near a wasp. But a PC who is affected by a Pit Fiend's aura... doesn't have that fear at any other point. Unless the player decides they do.

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."

Neither is love. I also don't have any rules for enforcing non-magical love on people. Or for telling people they feel happy. What makes fear any different?

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?

The point is, you as the DM do not get to decide what my player is afraid of. You do not get to decide what enemies I find terrifying. Just like you don't get to decide my backstory, which is also something that people in the real world can't decide. Physiological isn't enough of a justification for taking away the ability of the player to decide their emotional reaction.

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...

 

[carkl3000]

You do realize that you've pointed out a grey area in the rules and that ruling either way is just as supported - as in not supported at all by the rules. Fitting with the whole "Rulings not rules" schtick. But, your ruling is no more or less "official" than mine so any claim to a universal rule here is right out the window. At best you can says is, "At my table ..."

I don't think it's as grey as you think it is.

 

[lingual]

Why?

I'm the one who has talked about this. AFAIK, I'm the only one, so, if folks could keep it straight, that would be great.

But, again, why? I said that the stats should be included (granted, I said Monster Manual and should have said DMG, my bad). So, it's not like those who want to play halflings are losing anything. They still can, exactly the same way that many races in the MM are playable because of that table in the DMG.

I thought I read Monster Manual. The assumption would be that they would be presented as a player option in a splat book. Misunderstanding

I still think the PHB is fine. But we just agree to disagree there!

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I wonder if it only being "frightened" in the mechanical sense and and not requiring an emotional reaction helps for those who don't want PCs to experience such things? (It could be reskinned as something more palatable in terms of explaining the reaction).

With charm and straight up mind control around, frightened is the tamest one if anything. At worst you can go, "Your mind is calm, but your primal drive to survive in your subconscious does not allow you to move" or something along those lines.

 

[Cadence]

With charm and straight up mind control around, frightened is the tamest one if anything. At worst you can go, "Your mind is calm, but your primal drive to survive in your subconscious does not allow you to move" or something along those lines.

The issue appear to be that it's one thing when it's magical, but quite another when it's mundane. And many of the fear effects aren't listed as magical.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

The issue appear to be that it's one thing when it's magical, but quite another when it's mundane. And many of the fear effects aren't listed as magical.

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"

 

[Hussar]

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.

Well, there is significant evidence here.

It doesn't make for good world building because, well, WotC isn't using it in any of it's considerable world building. Nor did TSR. Nor did practically anyone else who produced products professionally.
If it was so fantastic for world building, where are these worlds?

 

[Hussar]

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"

So, you force your players to befriend NPC's who succeed at persuasion checks? You force their attitudes to be "Friendly"? Do PC's have attitudes? I know that NPC's do, but, I was unaware of the rules for PC's. Can you quote the page please? Show me the rule?

 

[Oofta]

Well, there is significant evidence here.

It doesn't make for good world building because, well, WotC isn't using it in any of it's considerable world building. Nor did TSR. Nor did practically anyone else who produced products professionally.
If it was so fantastic for world building, where are these worlds?

It works fine for me. Whether they are good for world building is opinion.