D&D General Short folk appreciation thread – what do you play?

[CreamCloud0]

Yes and no. I’d like if there was a bit more mechanical distinction that wasn’t just drawbacks, but through most of the game’s history Small size mechanical distinctions have mostly been negative, with only a few positives. It has generally felt unbalanced in favor of Medium, so I’m ok with it now mostly being the same as Medium instead.

yeah it kinda sucks that small mechanics tend towards the negative rather than being a lateral movement that creates a different experience.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Goblins and then Kobolds. I like the idea of a nuisance species that is presumptively bad, and I like the idea of a single individual rising from that to heroic status. It's a straightforward narrative, and it can play out so many ways, without the need to lean into the comedy.

I'll admit that I have found them more fun to play in 3.5 -- the ability score penalties made building an effective character challenging, and I enjoyed trying to overcome the mechanical handicaps. The drawbacks were what drew me to them. In 5e, there's a lot that can be done with both. The Goblin's nimble escape is great, and curiously means that goblins aren't at their "best" when they are a rogue. That mechanical shift changes the nature of goblin society.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

a question, when playing small species, do you ever find yourself wishing that their size category played more distinctly? rather than functionally being the same as a medium creature most of the time? not saying there aren't differences but, it's something that i feel you can end up forgetting for the most part.

i go back an forth. In 4e i argued against keeping the small size restrictions on weapon use.

However, i do wish that sizes mattered for attacks like in 3.5.

In my games it is easier to get advantage on attacks if your target is twice your size or bigger, and you can climb on anything twice your size or bigger like it is terrain but you cannot effect its movement by grappling it.

Meanwhile you can throw any creature half your size as if it were an object, and you can grapple such a creature one-handed with no effect on your own movement. Whether you can carry an unwilling small creature with one hand depends on weight and strength.

Also i make sure thst size impacts hiding.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I like Halflings, I'm making one for LEGENDS OF GREYHAWK, which will be a newly retired Sheriff of Elmshire, a sleepy town with a sizable halfling population on the shore of the Nyr Dyv not to far from Greyhawk.

 

[MGibster]

When you play Small-sized characters in (5e or previous versions), which ones do you actually like playing?

Thank you for the clarification. I'm 72 freedom units tall, so I was thinking I might be excluded from this thread. I typically play halflings when I'm one of the shorter species. I don't think I've played a gnome since 1st edition gave us the Thief-Illusionist and I can't remember the last time I played a dwarf.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I have played a gnome illusionist since 2006.

The central villains of the first half of my ongoing campaign were kobolds, with several appearances from goblins.

I previously have run a campaign set in Mystara's Five Shires and my group has applied to be playtesters for Merryshire Detective Club and we're all excited to go Agatha Christie in the Shire.

I've also run an all-dwarf game of Shadowdark, using Deep Delve. (Pretty good Moria simulator, but not as good of a depth crawl as Stygian Library, unsurprisingly.)

I don't play short characters for laughs any more than any other characters, but often times, the nature of the shorties is incongruous next to some more traditionally heroic characters, and that friction can be funny. (My gnome illusionist is obsessed with sweets and good footwear, which make perfect sense for him, but isn't what a gritty urban detective campaign in Ptolus it typically about.)

 

[Mind of tempest]

In early D&D, I played several Hobbit/halfling thieves and fighter/thieves. Early 80's college. Most folks wanted to play either Conan the Mighty or Gandalf Spell Flinger. The small thief, even though type cast, filled a needed purpose in the party. Plus inspiration from Bilbo. Finding a Cleric player was sometime difficult due to blunt weapons only limitations and lack of fantasy role models. Race limits on level were rarely a problem due to campaigns often resetting each semester due to new additions and departures of players.

Played a Druegar cleric in a AD&D 2e game. Campaign required all characters to be some variation of Underdark.

More recently, played a PF1 Oracle halfling as the party was very short on healing. Found that being a stealthy spell caster can be an advantage. And a Dwarf ranger in a PF1 game. Was planning on doing a fighter but clicked the wrong button in PCGen during creation and didn't catch until the game started. Decided to go with it. That game is paused due to switching to a Traveller game, then a Freeport PF1 game.

Have seen a few variations on Kobolds with delusions of dragonhood in D&D 3x and PF1 and one Goblin played as a martial artist type in a Fantasy Trip game.

honestly if I had existed then I would have liked to play everything about the cleric save the slight issue that it is religious and I can't role play faith in anything

 

[Mind of tempest]

The only ones I have experience with are:
Halflings. Possibly the most powerful race in 5e because they are 5% better at almost everything thanks to Lucky. Any time a DM says "critical fumble" I say "halfling." Bountiful Luck extends the benefit to the rest of the party. All true luckmancer characters are halflings. The rest of the species ability suite isn't terrible either, unless you want to swing a Big Sword or grapple.

Goblins. I wrote and ran a "Goblin Defense" campaign (on the DM's Guild). 3 Goblin PCs + minions build and defend their lair against adventurers who are always higher-level than they are. They dug a lot of Small tunnels, firing ports for crossbows, etc. It was fun! The innate Cunning Action is very powerful.

You could say much the same about kobolds as goblins, except with some different species-specific abilities. I could sub them into Goblin Defense with no problem. I just haven't been interested in doing anything with them. Maybe if I do a dragon minion campaign... but kobolds feel like they should be silly rather than serious.

I think Gnomes are supposed to be the artificer/inventor/machinery types, and that's not my thing or a thing in my settings. Except they also talk to animals? Are they the Keebler Elves? I don't know.
Autognomes are...robot gnomes? Warforged already own the robot slot, and they are much cooler.

ah the gnome identity problem

 

[Mind of tempest]

I’m working on a 5e-adjacent setting and ended up building several Small PC species that fill the same niche as halflings/gnomes/goblins, but with a post-apocalyptic flavor. In alphabetical order:

• Beaverfolk — Lodge-based water engineers whose constructions reshape local ecology; currently caught in outside conflict due to the rise of the Cult of Beaver Lodge. They have a paramilitary mindset and raise geese for security
• Bogeys — Extended-family con artists and deal-makers; competitive, covetous, and fiercely loyal once you’re “in.” Inspired by GURPS Goblins (Banestorm ones) with a healthy dose of the movie Labyrinth.
• Feylin — Winged fae fueled by pop-culture obsession; scouts, distractions, and chaos gremlins (including the infamous Cult of Bruce). This is easily the most popular species I made and has been used by faerie-winged, Rambo, and Conan cosplayers, for example. Even have one feylin gunsligner nicknamed "Dirty Debbi" Harry
• Garterfolk — Gregarious snake-people with seasonal mass gatherings and a pheromone-based language; oddly great diplomats and infiltrators. Essentially, a subversion of the snake people being villains and more like hippies. Based on the most social of snakes, the humble Garter Snake.
• Harvesters — Uncanny plant-humanoids from biotech farming communes; outwardly quaint, inwardly methodical and unsettling. Instead of Mind Flayers, we have these guys and they usually end up making killer psychic plant monsters. Not technically evil, but definitely dangerous.
• Little Bears — Teddy-bear-meets-bear-cub folk, possibly born from lost human souls; polite, sweet-toothed, and capable of sudden primal chaos. These burly little folk were inspired by the multitude of half-sized bears in 80s media. There is even a Gish order known as the TEDI

Curious reactions:

• Which of these feels like something you’d play?
• Do you like shortfolk cozy, scrappy, weird, or a little unsettling?

havester sounds like ufo lore greys

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I also really like Gnomes

Thoughts about Gnomes

I like Gnomes. I like the concept of a diminutive race with a beard and a silly hat that has magical abilities. It has a pedigree greater...

breadthofpopsanity.blogspot.com

so much that I did a rant a while back about them.

Me too!

Thread 'The Unified Theory of Gnomes'

Nov 30, 2007

Reposting myself from October. People periodically link to the post in an old thread I made, with my explanation that, IMO and IMC, I don't see gnomes has having too many disparate focuses; they have one focus that's never been properly identified as such:

Gnomes are the equivalent of magical rabbits. They are smaller and weaker than almost everyone else (except for kobolds, whom they compete for living space with -- no one ever remembers that kobolds also live in dark forests per the RAW). EVERYONE can wipe them out if they want to, so gnomes, like rabbits, have learned to hide...

• Whizbang Dustyboots
• Replies: 60
• Forum: *Pathfinder & Starfinder

• 
•