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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

For the record, all of the fire being directed at halflings on this thread, while gnomes fade into the background, is the most gnomish thing ever.

 

[Bohandas]

Gnomes I like because they're A. from real world folklore with history and B. they have innate magic powers that not every other PC shows up with at 1st level.

Halfings... feel like absolute worthless filler, to me. I'll let people play them, but I'll detail a campaign setting with like 20 races and always, always leave them out, by default.

This is more or less my impression as well, Gnomes have magic and steampunk going on and that's interesting, but Halflings' main thing seems to be just that they're short

 

[Chaosmancer]

There are no proficiencies in their statblocks at all. The math includes it, but the DM can give an orc a mace, spear, dagger, sword, crossbow, or whatever. Orcs are not limited to only being proficient in greataxe and javalin, even though those are the only two weapons shown in the math.

Except they didn't. Without any explanation as to why, we can't assume they are proficient in crossbows.

The PHB that says commoners(who are not PCs) are proficient with simple weapons.

Stuff deliberately taken out of context is of course, out of context. That sentence refers back to the one preceding it that says, "Most people can use simple weapons with proficiency." Not that it says people, not PCs, and then follows up with some of the weapons commonly found in the hands of commoners. By the way, the MM block on commoner only lists club, but clearly maces and other simple weapons they will be proficient with, per the PHB.

Feel free to continue to ignore the PHB RAW, though. I've no doubt that you will.

And that entire section is talking about proficiencies for player characters. Using "people" to refer to characters who may not be human and may be any gender.

Three classes have different proficiencies. Druids who are limited by their religion. Sorcerers and Wizards who are limited by their arcane specialization. All of the others can use simple weapons, just like commoners can.

I'm sorry, any commoner with no training can use any simple weapon with proficiency, but a person with training can't? Why because Sorcerers must train so hard to use their inborn natural magic that requires no training? Somehow in the course of learning magic they forget their ability to use all manner of weapons? Also, what possible religious reason is there that Druid's can't use Greatclubs? Or Light Hammers? Or Shortbows? Nothing in the anything tells us that they can't use these weapons do to religious restrictions.

And, of course, still ignoring the fact that shortbows are given to elves (oh wait, you said that had to be a mistake) and hand axes, and Light Hammers are given to Dwarves, despite according to you every single commoner already being proficient in those weapons.

Man, that is a lot of mistakes.

My theory is that most, including commoners(both of that per RAW), can use simple weapons. Clearly you've found a few of the specific beats general exceptions.

Yeah... like the rules.

Jesus. You confirm the strawman in the midst of trying to deny it.

Pretty much everyone is "Most people"(again, per RAW), but not every single person. So yes, you perverted my argument and then argued against your perversion.

Seriously. My god man, you want to call a strawman because you only want the vast majority of people and not literally every single person... That isn't even close to a strawman.

You do know that, colloquailly, "Everyone" doesn't mean literally every single person? It leaves open space for exception.

 

[Oofta]

For the record, all of the fire being directed at halflings on this thread, while gnomes fade into the background, is the most gnomish thing ever.

Wouldn't the most gnomish thing ever be to fade into the background until we hear someone say in gnomish "Oops" and then for fireworks that rival the 4th of July to start going off?

 

[steeldragons]

I mean, they were central figures in six blockbuster films, one of which won the Oscar for Best Picture so ... yes?

I appreciate the sentiment, but -and I am loathe to acknowledge- but "Fellowship" released 20 years ago.

I'm sorry. But, I don't consider that "recent."

...and now, if you'll excuse me, I have an appointment with a gallon of ice cream with "box of wine" sauce in which to bury my mortality/advancing years.

 

[Oofta]

I guess you can have fun in worlds without monsters or threats, like the other side seems to be insisting is reality in DnD.

You're positing a world where the only way to survive is to retreat behind stone walls every night no matter if you live on the edge of the wilderness or in the middle of an otherwise stable and wealthy kingdom. One where if you stay out at night you'll be eaten by hungry monsters that for some reason ignore livestock and, even though they are obviously starving won't hunt during the day. A world where an orcish horde can invade at any moment, but they leave crops alone. One where halflings (because they are not elves or dwarves) are left defenseless.

Do orcish armies invade? Yes. Same way that armies have invaded for millennia. Do all commoners in your world retreat behind stone walls every night? Well, then the halflings will probably be right there with them. In my campaign, in any campaign I've ever been involved with, there has been the assumption that many commoners live in the countryside. They might have simple fences to keep wild animals out of the barn and a bar across the door at night, but that's it.

If halflings don't work in you world, fine. From every campaign I've actually played in real life it's a pretty atypical one unless you're talking video games ... but that's a different story. Most video games have a silly concentration of monsters simply because of the nature of travelling from point A to point B and expectations of not travelling for a day or two (or longer) with nothing to do.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You make it really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt when you Strawman me this badly and this often. Go back and re-read my post until you understand it. Then I will respond to the content of your response.

I already read it repeatedly. Nowhere did you mention how safe they were from monster attacks. You simply said that adventurers would be in the locations.

Here, I'll just take one of them.

"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."


So, no mention of towns or villages, only cities and mining outposts. That is in the green.

You then say that holds are safe, with the text in orange.
Then you say that the mining outposts are safe with the blue. Well, you get upset if I say you said things that you didn't use the precise words to say.

You simply said "I think they would have active and or retired adventurers". And, since you claimed that the halflings were safe because of retired adventurers, and that location would have retired adventurers, therefore it would be safe, following your logic.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Wouldn't the most gnomish thing ever be to fade into the background until we hear someone say in gnomish "Oops" and then for fireworks that rival the 4th of July to start going off?

No, we blame that on the "kender."

That's right! There's a kender! He ran around that corner just now! GO GET HIM!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I appreciate the sentiment, but -and I am loathe to acknowledge- but "Fellowship" released 20 years ago.

I'm sorry. But, I don't consider that "recent."

...and now, if you'll excuse me, I have an appointment with a gallon of ice cream with "box of wine" sauce in which to bury my mortality/advancing years.

If Amazon ever gets their second age Lord of the Rings show out the door, I think they will be hard-pressed not to include at least one hobbit, even if that makes Tolkien purists' heads explode. (Which, let's be honest, will happen with that show no matter what.)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I guess you can have fun in worlds without monsters or threats, like the other side seems to be insisting is reality in DnD.

Except absolutely no one has suggested any such thing.