• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D General why do we have halflings and gnomes?

I legit think they do. They have solid hooks, solid write-ups, tons of interesting reinterpretations. I legitimately think that no one has had a single bad thing to say about them except for short jokes.
In post 530 in this thread (I don’t know how to cite it), I go through the 13 classes and compare with the gnome and halfling descriptions. I was pleasantly surprised at how many classes are good fits for gnomes based on the racial description.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

In post 530 in this thread (I don’t know how to cite it), I go through the 13 classes and compare with the gnome and halfling descriptions. I was pleasantly surprised at how many classes are good fits for gnomes based on the racial description.
Right click or hold the number in the top right corner of a post and click/tap copy link copy url or whatever your browser says for it like this 530. To link it highlight some text and use the chain link button or type of out like this
Code:
  [url="https://www.enworld.org/threads/why-do-we-have-halflings-and-gnomes.677747/post-8180482"]530[/url]
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
I never called you a troll and use of "Strawking" was pointing out a strawman for the umpteenth time.

Really? Because this:

No. I'm saying that the roads are from human town to human town and the halfling villages are in out of the way places with paths that are hard to find(per halfling lore). A horde of undead sent by a Necromancer who isn't brain dead, isn't going to go wandering the countryside in the hopes of wandering across a halfling village. They are going to go down the roads which are guaranteed to hit towns and cities for them to destroy.

The trolls are arguing otherwise.


Says otherwise.

Of course, let me guess. Despite that being something I am arguing against you on, since you didn't say my name, it doesn't count as you calling me a troll. Because you only call me a troll if you use my name, not position an argument that I am specifically having with you as something between yourself and trolls (Note plural as well)

You aren't fooling anyone, especially since:
This is false. I call you out for significant changes to what I say. I use my words carefully and your constant twisting of what I say into absolutes changes the meaning by quite a bit.

So, there you go. You are very careful with your words, which is why I know you meant to call me a troll, by saying that trolls were arguing with you about the necromancer's undead horde.
 


Nellisir

Adventurer
Some of this is also simply the concentrated halfling luck supernatural effect. I don't see why it's so difficult to accept in a world with flying reptiles that breath fire.
Dunno. The obsession with evolution always amused me. The campaign setting has real gods. Why is it so hard to believe that cocktrices are actually the result of some god being irked at a farmer? Or chickens laying eggs in a bad magic patch? Or curses? Or all of the above? Half-giants (jotunkin) in my campaign occur when people live near giants. Elves can (with some time) shift from being high elves to wood elves, depending on where they choose to hang their hat.
 

Nellisir

Adventurer
Yea, it doesn't take much for something to be qualified as a "road" vrs a path. Travel it enough & you will wear it to something worth qualifying for " turn at the big rock & follow the road"
A road is a lane and a lane is a track and a track is a path and a path is a trail, we can figure it's 2' wide and will accommodate wagons. Good catch!
What undead are you thinking of with 1hp?
I'm thinking that someone is too invested in this discussion. There are different styles and methods of playing D&D. I don't use average hit points...on average. And any D&D up through at least 3e. In 5e the road probably does 1d6 damage and requires a dexterity save to avoid the rope. You can sort that out if you're worried about it. Cheers!
 

Brave words. Wrong ones, but brave ones.

plus honestly I think the fact we've gone on this far about halflings specifically and the gnome mentions tend towards short shows that halflings were the mistake and gnomes fit into the world better somehow :p
You don't have to appear vague about it-there's no 'somehow'. Gnomes DO fit. If they don't, then there's a surely a host of creatures of every alignment that don't fit-and that includes certain classes of hero and heroine too. For instance, Monks are the most pointless and tragically loused-up amalgam of Ninjas, Clerics, Rogues and Draconic Sorcerers, with D&D 5E wanting to have it ALL ways with the most stupidest idea for a hero class that just doesn't exist, merely exhibiting features of all these classes. Screw Monks, screw 'em, if they were even worth it, which they're bloody not. Along with Modrons and Troglodytes as enemies, and Hobbits as a race, Monks just don't exist to me.

I always saw Gnomes as the 4th main good-aligned Hero races to play that weren't of the monster/animal humanoid subtype, with Dwarfs, Elves and Humans, so got a real shock to find they actually wasted 3 pages of The Race Chapter about them, and the Gnomes, while present, were relegated to the ridiculous "more Uncommon Races not existing in every D&D world", which surely adds fuel to their defence. What KIND of D&D interpretative round-up ALWAYS features Hobbits yet dismisses Gnomes, who bridge the gap perfectly between Dwarfs and Elves, while also maintaining an equally Elvish link to the Feywild and those sorts of creatures? Mecheon, you're so right about Hobbits being a mistake, not that it's a mistake, I've ever bothered with, just like Monks, which seem even more worthless than Hobbits. In fact, they are. Everything D&D pretends they do are merely already utilised by Ninjas, Clerics, Rogues, Witches, Samurais and Sorcerers. THAT simple.
 

You don't have to appear vague about it-there's no 'somehow'. Gnomes DO fit. If they don't, then there's a surely a host of creatures of every alignment that don't fit-and that includes certain classes of hero and heroine too. For instance, Monks are the most pointless and tragically loused-up amalgam of Ninjas, Clerics, Rogues and Draconic Sorcerers, with D&D 5E wanting to have it ALL ways with the most stupidest idea for a hero class that just doesn't exist, merely exhibiting features of all these classes. Screw Monks, screw 'em, if they were even worth it, which they're bloody not. Along with Modrons and Troglodytes as enemies, and Hobbits as a race, Monks just don't exist to me.

I always saw Gnomes as the 4th main good-aligned Hero races to play that weren't of the monster/animal humanoid subtype, with Dwarfs, Elves and Humans, so got a real shock to find they actually wasted 3 pages of The Race Chapter about them, and the Gnomes, while present, were relegated to the ridiculous "more Uncommon Races not existing in every D&D world", which surely adds fuel to their defence. What KIND of D&D interpretative round-up ALWAYS features Hobbits yet dismisses Gnomes, who bridge the gap perfectly between Dwarfs and Elves, while also maintaining an equally Elvish link to the Feywild and those sorts of creatures? Mecheon, you're so right about Hobbits being a mistake, not that it's a mistake, I've ever bothered with, just like Monks, which seem even more worthless than Hobbits. In fact, they are. Everything D&D pretends they do are merely already utilised by Ninjas, Clerics, Rogues, Witches, Samurais and Sorcerers. THAT simple.
I enjoyed this rant.

I enjoyed the parts where we compare monks to 6 different...classes.. I guess... where 2 of the comparisons are not even a thing in 5e (witches and ninjas), 1 of them is not in the PHB (samurai), and 1 is a specific subclass in the PHB (draconic sorcerer)...leaving 2 actual PHB classes remaining (rogues and clerics).

I enjoyed the part where of those 2 remaining classes 1 of them has next to zero in common with monks. Clerics are armored primary spellcasters. Monks are melee skirmisher martials. I mean there's so little overlap, they don't even share letters in their class names. The only things these two classes have in common are: they care about wisdom...and they roll a d20 for attacks and saving throws.

But sure there is rogue overlap.

I mean there are good reasons to complain about how monks fit. Surprising to see a rant like this land on...none of them.
 

turnip_farmer

Adventurer
You don't have to appear vague about it-there's no 'somehow'. Gnomes DO fit. If they don't, then there's a surely a host of creatures of every alignment that don't fit-and that includes certain classes of hero and heroine too. For instance, Monks are the most pointless and tragically loused-up amalgam of Ninjas, Clerics, Rogues and Draconic Sorcerers, with D&D 5E wanting to have it ALL ways with the most stupidest idea for a hero class that just doesn't exist, merely exhibiting features of all these classes. Screw Monks, screw 'em, if they were even worth it, which they're bloody not. Along with Modrons and Troglodytes as enemies, and Hobbits as a race, Monks just don't exist to me.

I always saw Gnomes as the 4th main good-aligned Hero races to play that weren't of the monster/animal humanoid subtype, with Dwarfs, Elves and Humans, so got a real shock to find they actually wasted 3 pages of The Race Chapter about them, and the Gnomes, while present, were relegated to the ridiculous "more Uncommon Races not existing in every D&D world", which surely adds fuel to their defence. What KIND of D&D interpretative round-up ALWAYS features Hobbits yet dismisses Gnomes, who bridge the gap perfectly between Dwarfs and Elves, while also maintaining an equally Elvish link to the Feywild and those sorts of creatures? Mecheon, you're so right about Hobbits being a mistake, not that it's a mistake, I've ever bothered with, just like Monks, which seem even more worthless than Hobbits. In fact, they are. Everything D&D pretends they do are merely already utilised by Ninjas, Clerics, Rogues, Witches, Samurais and Sorcerers. THAT simple.
Everybody knows what a DnD monk is. They attend monasteries up in mountains where they live ascetic lives and train constantly under the supervision of some mysterious old dude with a long, thin moustache who says meaningless crap that sounds deep, then they go off into the world and do kung fu.

Anyone who's ever watched television understands what this is trying to be.

Nobody knows what the hell a gnome is. Your going to lie to yourself and pretend that gnome is a well-understood archetype that we all agree on because you're steeped in decades of DND culture, but the basic races and classes should be those I can explain in detail to someone who knows nothing about DnD or its spin-offs by saying something like 'a Hobbit, like in Lord of the Rings'.

I mention gnomes and people think of stupid little guys with red hats in the gardens of people with poor taste. Or we have a big confusing discussion about folklore and the development of fantasy stereotypes because their native language does not distinguish between gnomes and dwarves.

@#&! gnomes.
 

Nobody knows what the hell a gnome is. Your going to lie to yourself and pretend that gnome is a well-understood archetype that we all agree on because you're steeped in decades of DND culture,
Hence the importance of good write-ups for all races in the PHB. So people don’t hear “halflings” and think “the guys from the Lord of the Rings movies who were comic relief and didn’t contribute meaningfully in combat for most of three movies”, and people don’t hear “gnomes” and think “basically Smurfs”.
 


Chaosmancer

Legend
Everybody knows what a DnD monk is. They attend monasteries up in mountains where they live ascetic lives and train constantly under the supervision of some mysterious old dude with a long, thin moustache who says meaningless crap that sounds deep, then they go off into the world and do kung fu.

Anyone who's ever watched television understands what this is trying to be.

Nobody knows what the hell a gnome is. Your going to lie to yourself and pretend that gnome is a well-understood archetype that we all agree on because you're steeped in decades of DND culture, but the basic races and classes should be those I can explain in detail to someone who knows nothing about DnD or its spin-offs by saying something like 'a Hobbit, like in Lord of the Rings'.

I mention gnomes and people think of stupid little guys with red hats in the gardens of people with poor taste. Or we have a big confusing discussion about folklore and the development of fantasy stereotypes because their native language does not distinguish between gnomes and dwarves.

@#&! gnomes.

Yeah, I don't know how many times I've talked to a WoW player and had to explain how wrong they are about gnomes. I mean, WoW players think gnomes are short underground mechanics who build strange devices...

oh wait.

Look , I get that people picture Garden Gnomes, and that is annoying at times. But while Halflings are just hobbits, who are really just short humans, Gnomes can also be really easily explained. They are literally the same as halflings, +illusions, or +tech.
 

I'm thinking that someone is too invested in this discussion. There are different styles and methods of playing D&D. I don't use average hit points...on average. And any D&D up through at least 3e. In 5e the road probably does 1d6 damage and requires a dexterity save to avoid the rope. You can sort that out if you're worried about it. Cheers!

Everybody knows what a DnD monk is.
It's a bad mishmash resulting from attempting to combine the fighter & rogue tables in an early edition to recreate a character from a book series called "the destroyer" that was pretty much james bond/david carradine's kwai chag kaine.
I talk about it a little more in this post/thread
They attend monasteries up in mountains where they live ascetic lives and train constantly under the supervision of some mysterious old dude with a long, thin moustache who says meaningless crap that sounds deep, then they go off into the world and do kung fu.
Yes and it's awful because of how jarring it is to insert into so many settings. Monk really only fits if they are narrated as engaging in all kinds of wirefu & such but that really only fits a game where everyone is narrated as doing that. Personally I can't wait till a5e replaces it with IForgetTheName as the barbarian>berserker gave a great example of avoiding the those sort of setting specific class problems.

Anyone who's ever watched television understands what this is trying to be.
A collection of asian cultural stereotypes from a 50 year old tv show starring written & directed by americans. Of course these days that show hasn't even been in daytime rerun filler for so long that a sizable chunk of d&d players can only look at the actual class & point at the mocking stereotype known as rock lee trying to be other cool martial artists
Nobody knows what the hell a gnome is. Your going to lie to yourself and pretend that gnome is a well-understood archetype that we all agree on because you're steeped in decades of DND culture, but the basic races and classes should be those I can explain in detail to someone who knows nothing about DnD or its spin-offs by saying something like 'a Hobbit, like in Lord of the Rings'.

I mention gnomes and people think of stupid little guys with red hats in the gardens of people with poor taste. Or we have a big confusing discussion about folklore and the development of fantasy stereotypes because their native language does not distinguish between gnomes and dwarves.

@#&! gnomes.
As @FrozenNorth mentioned, that's why it is so important for the race writeup to be done well & I'll add to it by saying that it's important for the phb to also be written in a way that makes it fit the various wotc owned settings. In the case of gnomes the phb pretty much fits greyhawk & fr gnomes, darksun gnomes are either wayyyy better at hiding than given credit because everyone thinks they were killed off in the cleansing wars while eberron gomes are extended in a few interesting ways not too problematic to hang from the base phb hook even if it could be done better.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Halflings: "Oh no, [Blank] was attacked. That's sad. They are less than a day's travel from us. Really liked the market there. Good thing that horde can't find us though since we are so far away."
More like;
Halflings: “Everyone! [Blank] is under attack! They’re less than a day’s ride, and they’re our friends. We need some folks to stay just in case the raiders find their way here, but the best riders should be enough to help our friends drive these bastards off!”

Because PHB-canon, Halflings are loyal friends, and fierce when defending their friends from harm. 🤷‍♂️
 

Inappropriate language and insulting other members.
I enjoyed this rant.

I enjoyed the parts where we compare monks to 6 different...classes.. I guess... where 2 of the comparisons are not even a thing in 5e (witches and ninjas), 1 of them is not in the PHB (samurai), and 1 is a specific subclass in the PHB (draconic sorcerer)...leaving 2 actual PHB classes remaining (rogues and clerics).

I enjoyed the part where of those 2 remaining classes 1 of them has next to zero in common with monks. Clerics are armored primary spellcasters. Monks are melee skirmisher martials. I mean there's so little overlap, they don't even share letters in their class names. The only things these two classes have in common are: they care about wisdom...and they roll a d20 for attacks and saving throws.

But sure there is rogue overlap.

I mean there are good reasons to complain about how monks fit. Surprising to see a rant like this land on...none of them.
The pure fact that 2 important classes (Witch and Ninja) weren't included over the wretched Monk is just another reason while constant exclusions harm the editions and make many think that just cos it's not there it doesn't matter. Nothing a Monk does is important as a hero and this crap about them 'destroying the Ki-NRG of their foes by virtually soaking it up like a sponge and having fists and feet of deadliness that actually harm living flesh and go through armour, well it's just stupid. Spellcasters (proper ones) do all the so-called Monk does in this way, and the Ninja and Rogue are the ones that handle the karate naughty word. This sucking-up living NRG thing to destroy your opponent is an Undead thing!

Weird how you act like a statement is a rant, and missing the points I'm making. I'm aligning Clerics with them because they're simply God-following fighters than sometimes go questing. Monks do this too, there's your link. How can a Witch and a Ninja not be a 'thing'. Especially as female equality is now a given thing for recently published D&D. A fantasy world without Witches as a major class? Dumb as naughty word. Blotting out the Ninja, ditto. How on earth a stupid Monk is worth more than these 2 I'll never know. I mean, Oracles, Inquisitors and Summoners stretch it enough, but they all seem to have more of a point than a Monk, which also seems to be some sort of fleshy elemental regarding it's silly features. Go on, idiot, give me all your so-called superior reasons why these wannabee Ninja/Rogue/Priest wish fulfilments work. Even Hobbits make more bloody sense. A Monk is one thing that'll never feature in my games. They achieve no more than a bloody Commoner would. At least all the other classes have something to offer (including the ones left OUT of 5E, ditto ignored monsters for the 2014 Monster Manual). Hold back on your silly rant nonsense, or I'll conclude you're just baiting and don't give any more a naughty word about Monks then Modrons.
 

Everybody knows what a DnD monk is. They attend monasteries up in mountains where they live ascetic lives and train constantly under the supervision of some mysterious old dude with a long, thin moustache who says meaningless crap that sounds deep, then they go off into the world and do kung fu.

Anyone who's ever watched television understands what this is trying to be.

Nobody knows what the hell a gnome is. Your going to lie to yourself and pretend that gnome is a well-understood archetype that we all agree on because you're steeped in decades of DND culture, but the basic races and classes should be those I can explain in detail to someone who knows nothing about DnD or its spin-offs by saying something like 'a Hobbit, like in Lord of the Rings'.

I mention gnomes and people think of stupid little guys with red hats in the gardens of people with poor taste. Or we have a big confusing discussion about folklore and the development of fantasy stereotypes because their native language does not distinguish between gnomes and dwarves.

@#&! gnomes.
Don't patronise me. I know what a Monk is, a generally boring and Holy Ninja Priest mash-up without the cool tools, and assassination angles. A Monk, as generally thought of, is NOTHING like they're describing it. Blowing flames from their mouths like Dragons, sucking up NRG like Undead, kicking and punching their way through bone, armour and resistant Fiend-flesh? THIS is what Monks do?! Must of missed all the films and TV based on them doing THAT?! You're another missing the point. A D&D Monk makes no sense at all, it COULD be anything, it has too many aspects of loads other classes. It's just not important; you might as well dump a whole load more class types in there from Commoners onwards and have THEM as players. And what a dumb thing to say-how can everyone who got the Player's Handbook or just simply typed 'Gnome-'D&D' or 'Gnome-Pathfinder' into Google will then get an idea of what they are! So what if Gnomes only come to mind as garden ornaments for loads of people, they do the same thing for Undead. Every fool now believes Zombies are brain-eating actors in soup-stained clothes with a skin complaint thanks to Hollywood, and to them too, Spectre, Wraith, Hobgoblin and more likely all come under the collective dictionary term as 'spirit in folklore' or 'ugly fairy'-two descriptions, incidentally, that certainly aren't the D&D idea of Hobgoblin. Who cares if a Gnome is or isn't a well-understood race. You going to lie to me and tell me ALL OTHER RACES are more fully understood? Not least when beings like Merrows, Darklings and others seem to mean 2 or 3 different things between differing D&D information.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
0C04004C-F36F-4711-9E1F-E5E7A5B5D3A0.jpeg
 


Minigiant

Legend
Now for something different
A thought experiment

Imagine you were making a barebones D&D edition or clone. However each race was defined by the stereotypical classes they were allowed to be and their specialization within those classes. You know, like the olden days. How would halflings and gnomes lookin compared tothe other races? What would be their allowed classes?

Gnome: Fighter (Artillery, Light Blade, and Pick Specialization) Rogue (Tinkering and Perception focus), Wizard (Illusionist)
Halfling: Fighter (Bow, Light Blade, and Sling Specialization), Rogue (Pickpocket and Stealth focus)
 

Imagine you were making a barebones D&D edition or clone. However each race was defined by the stereotypical classes they were allowed to be and their specialization within those classes. You know, like the olden days. How would halflings and gnomes lookin compared tothe other races? What would be their allowed classes?

Gnome: Fighter (Artillery, Light Blade, and Pick Specialization) Rogue (Tinkering and Perception focus), Wizard (Illusionist)
Halfling: Fighter (Bow, Light Blade, and Sling Specialization), Rogue (Pickpocket and Stealth focus)
I think Forest Gnomes would also get Druid and Ranger.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top