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

[Chaosmancer]

I never said they do or don't have any such ability. I proposed one way to rationalize something which you, specifically you, cannot believe because you insist on applying PC combat rules to all setting aspects.

I needn't have bothered though, because trying to prove something, by inventing an imaginary scenario, with combat between 2 groups of npcs is an incredible silly exercise.

Ultimately the DM decides who wins a battle between 2 groups of NPCs, whether through direct fiat, or as a result of total control of battlefield assumptions and tactics (if the DM is a masochist)

You're arguing an illusion.

Tell that to the other side, who keeps altering things further and further.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I believe, I think, that I asked politely you not respond to my posts because you repeatedly ascribe motives to me. You apologized and stopped.

You do realise you don't own this thread? And that you've just accused me of not arguing in good faith.

Then, a little bit later, you right back to it. So, don't worry, I'm unsubbing the thread very soon, so, you are free to have the last word. But, you do realize the irony of your argument right? "You just hate halflings, so, that's why you want them gone" works exactly the same in reverse. "You only want halfings in the game because YOU like them and you feel it's perfectly fine to force your preferences onto other poeple."

Nope. I have never played a halfling. I don't especially want to play a halfling. The only way things change for me if halflings are or are not in the PHB is three pages.

However I have played alongside players who picked them because they immediately empathised with them. What are just three blank pages in the PHB for me helped them. I consider it an actively good thing that other people get things I do not personally want. But them being on the game has limited effect on me - while it has a big effect on the people that play them.

"You may play this under the default settings" and "You can not play this under the default settings" are not symmetrical statements.

 

[Krachek]

It’s funny to look at those tryout trying to transform the PHB rules into Cosmic rules managing the universe!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I doubt the soundness of this inference. Based on admittedly very limited and anecdotal evidence, I think there are people who are playing on D&D Beyond but are far from hardcore, and are not paying (I assume there is a way for someone who is paying to share an account, b/c my daughter has played on D&D Beyond without having paid anything).

Her party of very new players started with one Elf (her), one Dragonborn, one Goblin, one Gnome and one Halfling. The Halfling died after a couple of sessions and was replaced by a Genesai.

Side note: the low numbers for Gnomes (esp Forest Gnomes) really make me doubt the data maps to the general D&D community. It’s just so opposite what I’ve seen online and in person. I don’t think the reality is like, 3rd place or anything, but I really doubt they’re actually as low as they show in the ddb data.

Anyway, yeah I’ve got three overlapping groups that all use my purchased stuff in our shared campaigns. Some have unlocked some content, but my wife and I are the only ones who’ve unlocked just about everything.

 

[Gammadoodler]

But, you do realize the irony of your argument right? "You just hate halflings, so, that's why you want them gone" works exactly the same in reverse. "You only want halfings in the game because YOU like them and you feel it's perfectly fine to force your preferences onto other poeple."

With little to do with this message, just want to point out that these are not the same arguments, regardless of actual motivations.

One argument boils down to denying options to everybody based on negative personal preference. In that instance, those that want the option available do not have it and thus cannot choose it.

The other argument is to provide an option to everybody based on positive personal preference. In that instance those who dislike it can still choose not to use it.

The only instance in which these might be considered remotely equivalent is under the assumption that there are two competing preferences and by including one you are excluding the other.

This does not appear to be the case except in the handwaviest sense of "well obviously something, anything, would probably be better".

All that said, I cannot speak for your personal motives for an extended, active, passionate involvement in a discussion of something you do not really care about, except that it's an odd way to spend time. I hope you've found it enjoyable.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Do Halflings in 5e still often have dogs? (Didn't they in at least one edition?)

They do not. Or at least, it is never mentioned.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You have invented this idea that every halfling carries a sling, to show their simple, community-oriented approach to defense, but then you vehemently deny that anyone else could do the exact same thing.

I don't deny they could - I consider it unlikely that they would. Or at least those who would are extreme outliers. The Ballearic Slingers that the Roman army used as auxillia might have done this - but only at the point that the Romans were using them as mercenaries so everyone learned it because it was the best way of making money (which is far from the reason halflings do).

So I'm saying it's vanishingly unlikely that humans would do something that humans would do as a society something that as far as I am aware that no known human society has ever done. But it's something that completely fits with halfling mindset and values.

Of course I might be wrong and that there have been human societies where everyone carried a sling - and I will gladly drop this objection if you are able to provide the historical research showing me to be wrong?

You seem to have this idea that somehow humans don't build communities that help each other out,

I no more consider that than that I consider that dwarves mostly being miners means that there are no human miners in a D&D setting. Races in D&D take archetypal things about different subgroups of humans (because humans are the only sapient species we have to base things on and everyone is playing a human) and turn them up to 11.

while at the same time, every halfling is a selfless defender of others (while still all hiding in their own homes)

If they are all in their own homes who would they need to defend that's outside their homes?

and all based around a concept you have homebrewed into the game.

Based around long term halfling lore and that changes no game rules at all.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Tell that to the other side, who keeps altering things further and further.

The other side does not need to be convinced; they've already rationalized it, in multiple ways. They are indulging you in engaging with the silly exercise on your terms.

Because it is silly, the DM is going to decide who wins and who loses, and then they'll decide what factors led to that victory or defeat, and they do that with absolute authority over those factors.

The most you can hope to accomplish with this exercise is agreeing upon a result under one particular set of assumptions which you'd have to agree upon with the other posters. And assuming you could get there, all you'd wind up with is a result that is entirely irrelevant to the broader game by virtue of the level of specificity required to achieve it.

 

[Faolyn]

Elves are mages − fullcasters and gishes − by both nurture and nature.




The cantrip of the High Elf is apparently Innate Spellcasting, as is the Drow Elf cantrip.

Except that if you look up elves in the DMG, in that mini-template setting, they don't get the cantrip ability, while drow do get their innate spellcasting.

Plus, the fact that it's called "cantrip" and not "innate spellcasting" or "legacy" (as per the tieflings) indicates that it's not an innate ability. Elves have always been mages, but they haven't been innately magical.

At any rate, this has nothing to do with halflings.

The Monster Manual has a number of creatures whose Innate Spellcasting uses Wisdom or Intelligence. For example. Githyanki uses Intelligence for Innate Spellcasting but Githzerai uses Wisdom.

They use psionics, not standard magic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Where on earth are you getting this idea?

Halflings probably use slings a lot, for reasons that others have already gone through, and mostly because they got a bonus with slings (and other thrown weapons) all the way up until 3x. This does not mean that they won't also use bows or crossbows. Or swords, or axes, or anything else.

Halflings do not have to use slings at all, if the DM wants them all to have bows or crossbows instead. In fact, halflings can have halfling-sized blunderbusses if the DM wants them to.

From Oofta, who objected to the idea that halflings use crossbowx, because they are a weapon of war. Followed by you putting forth this idea that halflings have trained their whole life in the use of the sling.

Which seems to be an artifact of older editions, and not 5e. As I have stated, the word "sling" doesn't appear in any halfling entry in the PHB or Mordenkainen's. This supposed affinity for slings no longer exists. And the other reasons people have given is because Slings are cheap. But saving money isn't exactly something we expect from Halflings, they aren't hoarding wealth, so who cares if it is cheap.

Light and not in the way? Okay, that shouldn't be your first concern when planning out a village defense. Personal Defense? Sure, and I stated at the beginning I liked the idea for personal defense. Just that it wasn't adequate for defense of a village.

Wow, it's like we're playing a game that entirely consists of things that are made up! Forget halfling-sized blunderbusses; halflings can have laser rifles if the DM wants them to.

And you seemed to have missed the point entirely. Let me give you an example

"Halflings have slings and can fight off the gnolls"
"Well, gnolls have bows in their entry, so they outrange the halflings, and they'd have to get really close to use the slings"
"The halflings have tons of 4 ft high cover, they'll hide behind it and snipe the gnolls, and the gnolls can't shoot them behind the cover"
"Where did this cover come from? Anyways, if the halflings are pinned down behind cover, the gnolls can either just circle around it or keep them pinned and have some get into melee. The Halflings would be impeded by the cover too, making it harder to take out the gnolls without getting shot"
"Well, just give the halflings the sharpshooter feet in regards to slings, then they don't need to worry about the range or the cover."

See the issue? I say slings aren't good enough, now halflings are getting a feat to make the slings good enough, instead of just... having them use a different weapon. Yes, the DM can make up anything they want. But once you start giving out feats to an entire race of people, you've started altering the game balance.

No, it doesn't. Because slings are a simple weapon everyone gets--unlike the martial weapons that elves and dwarfs gain proficiency in--and the 5e writers didn't choose to give them any other bonus with slings, like ignoring cover or increased range or damage. It doesn't actually break anything to say that halfling NPCs typically train with shortbows or crossbows or whatever.

Right, and crossbows are more effective weapons for them to use, and easier to train in the use of. So they are a good choice for defending the village.

That was my entire point. That right there.

And, if "everyone" gets proficiency in slings (which they don't, only every PC gets that) then humans and others could use slings every day too, because they are cheap, and easy to carry, and effective defenisve measures. But, I'm being told that no they can't, because humans aren't community minded, they'd do a militia and have specialized soldiers instead of having a way to defend themselves. Which... makes no sense. It is just to defend this idea that this sling idea which has no support in the 5e lore is somehow uniquely halfling.