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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Smurfs are my favourite depiction of gnomes

I had a Gargamel analogue as an antagonist in my campaign. Even after the player characters figured out who he was supposed to be, they still loved to hate him.

There's more good stuff in the Smurfs than I think most people are willing to admit.

 

[Minigiant]

Also, you have no idea what the population numbers are, and are basing your "there are about as many" number on pure speculation based on their being a core four races. It could be that human adventurers make up 50% of all adventurers in the entire world, and the elves, dwarves and halflings are just the next biggest populations. You have no idea.

D&D more or less has a default assumption that humans have the most adventurers by the vast margin due to humans having the vast larger pool of reasons to adventure. That's one reason why the other races had class and level limits in the olden days. The "demihumans" had fewerreasons to leave home, more reasons to return home, and less paths to adventure.

There are far more retired human adventurers in human towns than any other race's towns.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Do you impose the penalty on every monster that does not have PC class levels or is of a race that grants proficiency in the PHB? If yes, that's really odd. If no, clearly that proficiency applies to non-PCs as well.

You mean the proficiencies they are clearly given by their statblocks? You realize the monster math bakes that into them right?

But there is no "halfling" statblock in the monster manual. A halfling is not naturally proficient in those weapons. So if you want to make halflings proficient in all these weapons, you need to provide an explanation as to why they are proficient.

So, what gives Halflings their proficiency with these weapons? DM Fiat?

And they are SIMPLE weapons that apply to COMMONERS. Is specifically says commoners, not PCs. Commoners. And not commoners of a race lucky enough to have proficiency like an Elf. Jeebus man.

"Clubs, maces and other weapons like what are found in the hands of commoners"

Not that, it says that commoners use them, not that they are proficient. You will not find a commoner statblock with a mace proficiency, or a quarterstaff proficiency, or a spear proficiency. So, it is likely that they were refering to the type of weapons, not that they were giving commoners proficiency with them.

No company is perfect. It's reasonable to think that they made the mistake of keeping shortbow in there. Most likely, at some point there were going to make shortbow a martial weapon and it got moved. It's crystal clear from both the PHB specifying commoners, which PCs are not and the MM which gives races with no proficiencies listed the use of weapons, that proficiency with simple weapons is for pretty much everyone.

No, this is you making up rules because you don't like the real rules. Assuming that shortbows were a mistake and not the rules as written, when they have had six years to errata it, and never did, is either arrogant or facetious.

Additionally, looks at this list.

Daggers, Darts, slings, Quarterstaff, Light Crossbows.

That list is the sorcerer weapon proficiency list. Here is a list of every single simple weapon. I'll bold the sorcerers gains.

Club, Dagger, Greatclub, handaxe, Javelin, Light Hammer, Mace, Quarterstaff, Sickle, Spear, Light Crossbow, Dart, Shortbow, Sling.

So, in your theory that everyone in the world is supposed to get Simple Weapon proficiencies, and them not getting that is a mistake that the Devs have simply not bothered to fix for the past six years, how do you explain someone who has only 5 of the 14 simple weapons. Or, nearly 1/3 of the weapons. Was that a mistake too? Was the Druid a mistake? They have 9 out of 14.

So, elves, dwarves (who were given light hammers and handaxes), wizards, sorcerers and druids were all misprinted, and are actually supposed to have all simply weapons as a proficiency... or the rules don't give you proficiency for no reason, and you need to have a reason to have it.

I think I'm going to lean on major sections of the rules being correct and not mistakes that have gone unnoticed for years.

You mean other than the specific rebuttals. But hey, continue to deny reality.

The very specific "that's absurd" ah yes, truly it was a great point that clearly communicated why using the rules as written as inappropriate.

Oh wait.

It very heavily implies it.

Actually, it does the exact opposite, only making sense if there are villages without retired adventurers. You know, like I keep saying.

That's yet another Strawman. You just can't help yourself with those, can you?

What was it you just said in this post? Oh yeah

"that proficiency with simple weapons is for pretty much everyone."

What was my text you called a Strawman?

"Text does not give every single person in the world proficiency with simple weapons"

Hmmm... everyone, proficiency , simple weapons... yeah that looks like literally your point. Are you saying your own argument was a strawman this whole time?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. Their folksy homebodiness is what makes them the best wells from which adventurers spring.

Heck, that's the whole idea behind an entire RPG, Beyond the Wall, and the fantasy subgenre that inspired it.

 

[Maxperson]

Poor reading of my question, because I typed too fast.

"How many of those human, elf and dwarf towns and villages with their retired adventurers are completely safe from monsters attack?" was the question. I meant the ellipse and paragraph break to be a long pause, didn't think about how that would effect the reading for you to completely ignore the fact that I was talking about elves, dwarves and humans.

Yes, that's very different.

There isn't a solid answer to give. I mean, is it 52? 119? No way to know how many.

The less solid answer is this. Humans are the most expansive and inquisitive of the three races, so there are quite a few frontier towns and villages. Frontiers also tend to be where the vast majority of monster and adventurer opportunities are, so there is a disproportionate number of adventurers in those frontier towns and villages. Some of those would fall in love with the area and retire there. So I think every or nearly every human village and town will have some number of retired, active or both adventurers present.

Dwarves on the other hand tend to stay in Dwarven mountain cities where they can delve for ore and gems. Some of those cities open up to the Underdark which exposes them to threats from beneath, and of course there are external mountain entrances. However, God help any monster or force that tries a frontal assault on a Dwarven hold. They'll deserve what they are going to get. Less than humans, Dwarves would also have expeditionary forces that may set up small mining outposts. Those would be far more at risk. I think they would also have active and/or retired fighting types and maybe some clerics.

Elves are probably the least expansive and most decadent of the core races. I don't see them with many villages or towns at all, but their cities tend to be in large forests where monsters also dwell. However, Elven high magic, stealth and perception being what it is, I think monsters likely give those cities wide berth and they face little risk of attack. Being cities there are probably a great number of retired adventuring types or non-adventuring elves with "classes."(in quotes due to how NPCs work in 5e).

Facts are facts. The text says that some villages have Elders who were adventures. Not all. So there are going to be no retired adventurers in some villages.

It does not say "some villages." It says, "Some elders- especially those who once had fancy feet themselves- just shrug,." That's not "some villages," but rather "some of that villages elders."

Also, you have no idea what the population numbers are, and are basing your "there are about as many" number on pure speculation based on their being a core four races. It could be that human adventurers make up 50% of all adventurers in the entire world, and the elves, dwarves and halflings are just the next biggest populations. You have no idea.

You are correct, and I think humans have the largest number. That said, Halfings are part of the 4 races that commonly make up adventurers, so they are common, not uncommon or rare. Something that is common can be found in abundance.

So you agree with me that the lore write up for halflings makes no sense. That I am right.

Because you just said that "common sense" tells us that halflings have to have more than this. You then are asking me if I have any military tactics beyond the only military tactics listed in the lore for Halflings.

Not exactly. I'm saying that it's incomplete, probably because it's so blatantly obvious that 1) being listed under the goddess makes it a religious rite, and 2) that Halflings would have access to weapons. It would be silly, as well as prohibitively expensive for them to put every blatantly obvious thing into print. The book would be massive and be so costly that few would ever sell.

Why don't you tell me. Is there any mention of halflings in Mordenkainen's using weapons other than sticks and stones to defend their villages? Is there any indication that by saying that the tactics (which are regarded as the Goddess favorites) are simply religious excersises and not actual military tactics? Especially considering this: "In this way, the halflings get practical experience in executing measures that are designed to help the halflings defeat kobolds and goblin raiders, or even take down an ogre. When the time comes to put those tactics to use in earnest, everyone will be ready." is right before they start going into the tactics?

There's picture of a Halfling with a sword opening a chest and on the very page where it talks about sticks and stones being hurled at ogres, there is an ogre with stuff, including multiple large knives or daggers, being hurled. So from the pictures they clearly have weapons. There is also mention of cutting down trees, so they have axes to use.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I love playing gnomes myself. I imagine them as having really specific, obsessive interests, with my favorite gnome PC so far being a conjurer who absolutely believes there are good demons somewhere and wants to prove it.

Have him check Tumblr.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

They just like to spend time at the best inns, eating the best food while they are out adventuring.

If I had just to help reattach limbs to two of my traveling companions, had to walk 10 miles back from the dungeon because a wyvern ate our mounts while we were inside, and I have this rash that I'm pretty sure I got in a mummy's tomb, you're damned right that I'm spending my gold on a great meal and the best bed I can.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Let me just blow 13 and a half years of dust off this: The Unified Theory of Gnomes.

Gnomes are the tricky little guy. The trickster, the guy for whom the world world is bigger and meaner than (as opposed to kobolds and goblins, who are as mean as anything that might come for them). They survive by their wits in a multiverse that, if it were ever to remember them, would rub them out just to kill some time.

They love gadgets and magic and hanging out with animals and wouldn't say no to a nice dinner and a pleasant walk in the woods and hills after.

And despite all that, they're still good-natured, friendly folk.

They're Spider-Man, if Spider-Man was three feet tall and Aunt May was a badger.

Halflings are a similar idea, but more cosmopolitan: Instead of disengaging with larger society, they're part of it, relying on the social contract that suggests that peaceful agrarian societies should be left alone. The world has other ideas, of course, which is the source of many halfling adventurers, who work to preserve a way of life that has value and meaning, even as the rest of the world seems like it's on fire. And the rest of the time, when those guardians of halfling life have done their jobs too well, halfling player characters are the ones striking out looking for the adventure they can't find at home.

I think there's an argument that they should be subraces of a single race, but I can't imagine a game like D&D without having a plucky little protagonist type smaller, weaker but cleverer than all of their foes. That's a great archetype and a classic of myth and fiction for a reason.

Yep, and games that take out anything like either race are noticeably missing them, IMO. The Dragon Age games would greatly benefit from the inclusion of something like Gnomes or Halflings.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Hoard robbing for booze and whore money is the satyr's gimmick

Don't tell the dwarf that.

Also: Satyrs should be a core race in 6E.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's not what the book says (I'm assuming you're referring to MToF). It's full of "mights" and "maybes". Halflings are good at finding difficult to find areas many people will not notice, they aren't invisible.

Then again, that text is in an optional book so feel free to ignore it if it bothers you so much. Between 50-70% of any populace with the tech level standard for D&D are going to be farmers. There's no way they're all going to retreat inside at night in most campaigns. Besides, it's not like there are many monsters in this edition that are sunlight averse so it's not like daytime would be any safer.

If the world was as dangerous as you posit, everyone would starve to death.

No way they can go inside huh...

Well, let me think about this.

First of all, walls don't have to go around cities. You can build a wall around the farmland. Then farm behind the wall. No DnD setting really does this, but it is an option.

Also, um, dwarves. Dwarves live underground or in mountains almost exclusively. There isn't major tracts of farmland, and if there was, the dwarven homes are still inside the mountain. And they can all fit in there, since it is a hollowed out mountains.

Elves could actually be a very interesting example. If they were capable of farming in the forested environment, which they might be able to do if they focused on certain types of food, then they could go traditional and live up in the trees. Many of the threats are ground based, and living in a suspended city with an early warning system could easily allow for them to protect the populace.

And, I know you don't like this answer, but magic makes a massive difference. Via magic you can shrink a farmland needed to feed a population by half. Magic also allows for a far easier time in building tall structures. Most fantasy structures are much more vertical than medieval building. You could quite easily conceive of a city built up instead of out to give the needed space for the farmers. Or, you could go down. If the underdark is a thing in the setting, it is generally massive and covers most of the planet, since it is so dangerous it would need to be fortified, and that fortified underground area could be used for even more additional housing, allowing for even more people to fit inside the city walls.

Also, being daylight sensitive wasn't the point. The point was being able to see the monsters before they arrive. Since most enemies have Darkvision, they would generally prefer to arrive under the cover of night, when they can see and their targets can't.


None of this is impossible. It just is usually not bothered with so people can just pretend DnD looks exactly like medieval fantasy europe.