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

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah but LOTR and D&D use different base assumptions.

Have you read Concerning Hobbits? It fits just fine into a typical D&D setting.

Methinks you don't get that official content dictates initial perception of a race, class, or monster.

It didn't dictate my initial perception. You get your initial perception where you encounter something first (clue is in the name), and I first encountered halflings (and dwarves and elves) in the novels The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

If D&D treats halflings as rustic side characters who don't do anything serious, then that's how most people will see them.

None of my players do anything serious, so that is a major plus. People play D&D for fun, not to be serious. Serious is for work.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I was told in this thread that we were dealing with the medieval times. That was the basis for much of what we were talking about. Between 900 and 1300 AD. I didn't insist on that by myself, it was a consensus of the debate.

1 - 3: Taxes have come up repeatedly. @tetrasodium is usually the one who brings them up. @Oofta has repeatedly taken him to task for assuming that halflings don't pay taxes, so, clearly there is a consensus that they should or do pay taxes. And @Maxperson has said that Halflings don't sell things for coin, because that would make them greedy, so it doesn't matter what percentage of income is taken as taxes, it would likely be in food stuffs. Both because of a lack of coin and because that was the style of taxation during the time period.

Now, I might disagree with some of that, but it hardly matters. I've been told I'm wrong and making stuff up by people constantly. Therefore, your arguments should at least fall in line with everyone else's assumptions. Otherwise, I'm engaging in half a dozen different realities and premises.

6: I showed a map of Faerun earlier. I colored in red every location reported to have populations of gnolls, orcs, goblins, trolls, hill giants, or ect. This map being a surface map, did not include any threats from below the surface, which includes multiple slaver races. The "safest" part of the map were tiny areas that were within 3 days travel of those monster borders. Sure, it is possible that an entire race of people could live and farm in those areas without fear of attack, but it becomes incredibly unlikely. Especially since they would be smack in the middle of locations with a lot of humans and dwarves, and halflings are also supposed to be far away from political conflicts too.

7: The only other solution I've been shown is "the gods make them safe". And yes, in DnD, a game about monsters that you must kill to keep the people safe, I tend to assume that people use force of arms to keep themselves safe. Can diplomacy work? I like to do so in my games, but the default lore certainly doesn't allow that for any of the common raiding races.


8: And you think they should? They are one of the four most common races in the game, one of the four free races alongside human, elf and dwarf. Shouldn't they feel integrated into the world? Isn't them being somehow disconnected from the world a bad thing?



You keep presenting the case backwards.

You said halflings could just grow crops like saffron at home.
I said that if they could grow such valuable spices easily from home, then humans could too, and this would mess with the world
You said no, humans can't do that, because they are all commercial farmers and so they couldn't grow small amounts of spices for their own use, only things they can sell for money.


Now what you are saying, which is slightly more reasonable, is that humans would grow saffron (which was my claim, so thank you for agreeing I was right) BUT they wouldn't be willing to not grow saffron in exchange for growing food to eat.

This is the commercial farm problem of the 1700's, the one I kept saying you were talking about. The one that only works if you have massive trade networks in place. Because without the ability to import food, everyone in the region starves to death for not having food.

So, if you would like to posit that humans can't grow saffron, because if they did they'd all starve because they'd stop growing food... well, that is your perogative. But if halflings can grow small amounts of saffron alongside enough food to survive... then so can humans. Human beings, despite what you and Max seem to think, aren't greedy to the point of literally choosing to starve to make money. However, that problem relies on them growing the spices, the thing I said they'd be able to do.

So again, I was right in my analysis, if halflings can grow spices, then humans can grow spices. If halflings can grow spices and food, then humans can grow spices and food, unless you assume the almighty gold piece is so powerful that humans are willing to starve to death in the pursuit of shiny metal, like they are all dragons.



The class ability of "stealth" does not generally apply beyond the person rolling the skill. It is actually a common problem in adventuring groups. They all roll stealth to hide, the halfling rogue rolls 28, the human fighter rolls 3, and they are discovered.

So, why would I accept that the halflings stealth skill applies to an entire village of people, when it doesn't apply to their friend standing right next to them? That is the major disconnect. You want to apply stealth globally, when it has never applied globally.

So let's just start up front with this. In places where, I agree or disagree with your particular logic I will note it as numbered, but the overall thrust is that I disagree that any of the listed assumptions is sufficiently universal to serve as basis to say whether the halfling works in D&D.

With that out of the way.
1-3. Taxes have come up repeatedly, and there's been much disagreement regarding how or whether that would apply to a halfling village.
---- This seems like direct evidence that the assumption is not universally held, which is my point.

4-5. Either I failed at numbering or we're good with these. Progress either way.

6. Yes you did show the map of Faerun, and for the sake of argument, I'll accept it as a proxy for D&D worlds, despite very rarely playing in it. And I'll do so to ask, are all described as being settlements walled and guarded? Are there really zero peaceful rural villages? Some have been saying that Phandalin is intended to represent the typical D&D village, but it seems strange that an adventure setting location would be "typical".

7. Or..you hide or 'avoid notice' or 'avoid offense' Like the lore says they do...often...in multiple places.

8. I think it can make sense either way for them to be associated or disassociated. Seems sensible for a race that's affable but stealthy and reclusive.

The presented argument consistently boils down to:
Halflings will generally allocate resources with a bias toward maximizing pleasant experiences, while other will generally allocate with a bias toward maximizing other things (wealth, fame, power, etc.)."

How...is...this...a...difficult...concept?

It's not this weird binary choice of starvation vs. gourmet meals that you're insisting on. It's marginal differences based on differing priorities. Everyone eats. Some eat better food and make some amount less money (none for example). Others make more money (more than none for example) and their food is some amount worse.

Like seriously, there are rats in the rat race, and there are those who opt out of the rat race in order to be happy. Other races tend toward greater rat race participation than halflings will.. exactly as the lore states..often..in multiple places.

Your interpretation of how stealth can work is not the only interpretation. I see it as stealth used to aid in crafting. It's kind of like how you don't usually attribute the design of a hedge maze to the guy who trims it.

Edit: also in my experience, for a group stealth check, how well the rogue rolls does matter to the success of the group check.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I guess I could just roll over and take it, but I have bad habits. People keep accusing me of everything under the sun, and I'm not the sort to just give up when the evidence is so blatant.

Especially as people twist the evidence to prove something that isn't true. You don't need to change halfling lore. I've been told repeatedly they work perfectly fine as written. People can ignore the problems for their home game. But I proved that the DnD worlds are as dangerous as I claimed they were, and I didn't design them that way. I proved that gnomes were taught magic, not just given it. I proved my points over and over again, people just refuse to accept I might be right.

After all, if I was right, then they might feel the need to change, and they don't want to go through that effort. Easier for me to just be wrong.

As I said...it is odd to me that you are so hung up on proving that your opinion is "right" because that is an impossibility. The very adventure that you point to to show how lethal a border town in the D&D world can be is the same adventure I point to in order to show how non-lethal it is. There is no shortage of danger in the immediate area around the town, but yet at the end of the day only one townsperson was killed as a result of all that danger. And then a group of non-experienced newbs rolls into town and takes care of all the problems in the span of a month.

You see lethal, I see problematic. And this is comparing a "dangerous" border town. For halflings we are talking about the safe areas of the world, which in your opinion don't exist as livable without upsetting or paying homage some other power but in my opinion is sprinkled all around the map in enough quantity that it supports halflings as a race.

You will never be able to prove an opinion incorrect, nor should someone having a different opinion from your bother you. Multiple people on this thread have laid out and and listed for you the exact things that you are arguing that ONLY APPLY TO YOUR GAME, but you don't seem to be able to understand that these things, in actual fact, ONLY APPLY TO YOUR GAME. I will once again include those things that ONLY APPLY TO YOUR GAME and which will never be able to win you an argument.

1. Danger levels of different areas on the map.
2. Local governmental systems/taxes/feudalism/serfs/fealty/protection.
3. Agricultural systems.
4. The relative power levels and functions of the different gods and how they interact with their client followers.
5. Motivations of any particular group.
6. How raiders "work".

On a previous reply you said "Now, I might disagree with some of that, but it hardly matters. I've been told I'm wrong and making stuff up by people constantly. Therefore, your arguments should at least fall in line with everyone else's assumptions. Otherwise, I'm engaging in half a dozen different realities and premises."

YES. That is what people are trying to tell you. Every single person here has a completely different reality and premise that applies to their game world. Even at my local game among friends...we have three GMs that all have their own "takes" on how some things work that do not necessarily agree, even if we are GMing the same world. There is no "right" way things work, there is simply a basic starting point for everything that you can use to fashion your game however you like it to be. If you fashion your world in such a way that the basic starting ideas for halflings don't work for you, then fine, you do what you did and adjust it accordingly. This doesn't invalidate the basic starting ideas for everyone else "Because they don't work", which is what you are arguing here for some time.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Most of halflings will not want to fight, but if it is necessary in the batlefield they would avoid the direct contact and from hidden places will throw a rain of arrows. Maybe the door of the temple is magic, and if an intruder tries to enter (and doesn't say the right keyname, or wearing a special holy symbol) is teletransported nude and unnarmed to a special prison cell and sleeping. All the basement will have a secret door linked to a underground tunnel net with enough traps.

 

[Minigiant]

Have you read Concerning Hobbits? It fits just fine into a typical D&D setting.

`Nope. But again, I don't think hobbits fit the default assumptions of a D&D setting. Not as humaniods anyway.

It didn't dictate my initial perception. You get your initial perception where you encounter something first (clue is in the name), and I first encountered halflings (and dwarves and elves) in the novels The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

And that is your bias showing. You love the idea of hobbity halflings so much, you cannot percieve others having legitimate confusion to them and see any criticism as a need for more exposure to LOTR.

But again. D&D is not the LOTR.

None of my players do anything serious, so that is a major plus. People play D&D for fun, not to be serious. Serious is for work.

You can have fun and expect your DM to be serious about their role and the beings in the world to treat as real.
You treating halfings like a joke proves my point that many treat halflings like a joke and not at the same level as elves or dwarves.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Literally nobody ever claimed that they all had magic, though, Mr. Strawman. So yes, it's a Red Herring.

Ah, I'm sorry. You just said some of them have the magic I misread that.

AND? I apologize that I misread, it must have been because I thought you were making a point that actually meant something. "Some Deep Gnomes have magic" doesn't prove anything. Especially since, if they aren't all born with it, it adds to the lore telling us that they were originally taught, not divinely blessed.

Yes, the magic exists, that doesn't prove that they were divinely blessed instead of divinely taught in the past, and that their people continue to hold sacred teachings.

Of course it matters to PCs whether or not DMs allow feats. It would be absurd to think otherwise. It doesn't matter to NPC Deep Gnomes, because they generally aren't built like PCs. I'll let you read the DMG to figure out the truth of that, because from your argument here, it doesn't seem like you've read that book, either. I'll also let you read the MM to see that literally every Deep Gnome that isn't a PC has innate magical ability without the need for a feat.

So, we have established that some Deep Gnomes don't have this magic.

You then accuse me of not reading the DMG
And you accuse me of not reading the Monster Manual.

And, it turns out that your original argument was "some Deep Gnomes" have this magic, not all of them... so your original point is that it isn't all of them, so why add on accusations that I haven't read the books? What are ypu accomplishing? Proving that not all Deep Gnomes have that magic?

Also, I know I'm the monster who never reads and twists everything, but if you read the MM you will see this little nugget: "This appendix contains statistics for various humanoid nonplayer characters (NPCs) that adventurers might encounter during a D&D campaign, including lowly commoners and mighty archmages. These stat blocks can be used to represent both human and nonhuman NPCs." And the very first thing they say under Customizing NPCs is "here are many easy ways to customize the NPCs in this appendix for your home campaign.... You can add racial traits to an NPC."

Now, I know that you know about these rules, because I've told you about them before. These rules tell us that if I want to have a Deep Gnome Archmage... I can just pull the Archmage NPC statblock without the Deep Gnome magic and this is a perfectly legal option. Encouraged even, because the option to add Deep Gnome Magic is under "customizing" the statblocks. That means that we can use them standard, without Customizing

So, by RAW, I can even have NPC Deep Gnomes without that magic. So, I guess it is a good thing I read the MM.

I'll let you think about that for a bit.

The point was you to think about it.

You know, since you said it was impossible that he taught them, like it says he did.

That had to be a joke.

No it wasn't.

No. Literally none of that is why I told you that you were wrong. It is another fantastic Strawman, though. I never made up my own version or said that I made up my own version.

Really? You said that it was impossible that Baravar taught them their magic that they have. The book tells us that he taught them their magic, and that he is responsible for their magic. You decided that that meant he divinely blessed them with innate magic, because it is impossible that they were taught something that is innate.

Except, it isn't innate, as we showed it is not something that every Deep Gnome is born with. And the book specifically says he taught them. So, you have your own version that it is impossible to teach them something that is innate, and it is innate, despite there not being anything that tells us it is actually innate and not something they learn.

Dude, you gave me a quote that didn't say what you said he said. And no, I'm not going to go back and try and disprove your statement. You made a statement about him. You're almost never correct with your statements. I told you that I'm not going to just believe you when you make a statement any longer and would need a quote. You gave me a quote that failed. It's on you to prove your words, not me. Either do it or don't.

Right, because you always claim I'm wrong, I must be wrong.

Well, it doesn't matter to me that you are wrong that about "literally no one said that". That was your assertion. I gave an example of someone who did. I gave evidence of his opinion, even if he didn't in that post specifically say thagt we shouldn't discuss the book (which he did previously, but I'm not digging it up)

You want to prove that you were right about an absolute? Then you do the leg work. I'm done doing it for you.

1) I had not yet read Goblins, since I haven't used them in 5e yet. 2) I read about Goblin lairs in both Volo's and the MM and not one word says that they raid for ceramics. It does say that they raid for objects to test the waters, but I doubt they are looking for soap dishes, instead of silver and gold objects which have value and use.

Nothing in the lair write-up contradicts me. Of course, to even be near a Halfling village in the first place, that Halfling village needs to be near a mine or abandoned mine for the Goblins to set up their lair in.

Hmm, you have never used them. Well, that explains a few things.

Also, I said "maybe read some adventures" the Monster Manuel and the Volos are decidely not adventures. So, you didn't read about how filthy and full of random crap goblin lairs are. How there are goblins who have a "great treasure" in a bent spoon.

They also in Mines of Phandelver we hear "Some goblin tribes were not above waylaying travelers on the road or in forests and stripping them of their possessions."

Note, it isn't strip them of their valuables. It is all of their possessions. Goblins are not just after silver and gold. They go after a lot of things. In adventures they often have lots of random junk in their lairs that they have taken from other races.

Ahhh, Mr. Strawman, Mr. Strawman, Mr. Strawman. I never said that.

I'm sure you will be more than happy to tell me how I wasn't supposed to take your claims here:

It matters because of the Halfling mindset. A people who occasionally swap some sandals for some pepper are different from a people who trade sandals for coins. Money corrupts.

Which to remind you since you have forgotten was in regards to your claims that halflings don't sell things, is supposed to be taken as a strawman of how you claimed that they don't sell things for money because that would make them greedy.

OH WAIT! I know. You said money corrupts, so it would corrupt them, but you didn't say it would make them greedy, just corrupt. That is why I made a strawman isn't it? Because Greed isn't a form of corruption tied with money.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So let's just start up front with this. In places where, I agree or disagree with your particular logic I will note it as numbered, but the overall thrust is that I disagree that any of the listed assumptions is sufficiently universal to serve as basis to say whether the halfling works in D&D.

With that out of the way.
1-3. Taxes have come up repeatedly, and there's been much disagreement regarding how or whether that would apply to a halfling village.
---- This seems like direct evidence that the assumption is not universally held, which is my point.

4-5. Either I failed at numbering or we're good with these. Progress either way.

6. Yes you did show the map of Faerun, and for the sake of argument, I'll accept it as a proxy for D&D worlds, despite very rarely playing in it. And I'll do so to ask, are all described as being settlements walled and guarded? Are there really zero peaceful rural villages? Some have been saying that Phandalin is intended to represent the typical D&D village, but it seems strange that an adventure setting location would be "typical".

7. Or..you hide or 'avoid notice' or 'avoid offense' Like the lore says they do...often...in multiple places.

8. I think it can make sense either way for them to be associated or disassociated. Seems sensible for a race that's affable but stealthy and reclusive.

Look man, it isn't fair to you, but after I spend 45 minutes to an hour responding to Max, I'm exhausted when I got to this post. So, I'm skipping things because I can't spend another hour and a half on this thread.

6) There might be smaller pastoral towns. Many of them are attacked by raiders. The only other specific examples we got from the Ten Towns, when I looked into them, they had guards, soldiers, militias, I don't remember the exact wording. I remember it was 25 people which was 16% of the population of the town. The other town had a dedicated temple to the God of Warriors, and a famous armory which raises questions "who is buying these weapons and armor on a regular enough schedule to keep them in business?"

7) And how do they hide their villages? Divine Intervention. What luck allows them to always avoid notice? Divine Intervention. This has been a point of contention, I know, but that is the narrative that is being pushed.

8) Dissociated is bad. It means they don't fit into the world, and that is a sign of poor world building.

The presented argument consistently boils down to:
Halflings will generally allocate resources with a bias toward maximizing pleasant experiences, while other will generally allocate with a bias toward maximizing other things (wealth, fame, power, etc.)."

How...is...this...a...difficult...concept?

Because.... they.... should.... allocate.... resources.... to.... defense....since..... living...... is ..... important..... and..... allocating...... resources...... to...... pleasant......expeirences..... includes...... trading...... for...... things...... they...... don't...... already....... have......

Did spacing out every word help you like you thought it would help me?

It's not this weird binary choice of starvation vs. gourmet meals that you're insisting on. It's marginal differences based on differing priorities. Everyone eats. Some eat better food and make some amount less money (none for example). Others make more money (more than none for example) and their food is some amount worse.

Like seriously, there are rats in the rat race, and there are those who opt out of the rat race in order to be happy. Other races tend toward greater rat race participation than halflings will.. exactly as the lore states..often..in multiple places.

Halflings making high quality meals is in the lore. That isn't up for debate.

You insisted that if humans had access to easily grown spices, they wouldn't grow them because they are all commercial farmers. That is what I challenged. Not that halflings are trying to be millionaires, that isn't part of the discussion at all. The point was if there is a plant halflings can grow, other people would grow it.

That has nothing to do with money. Money is a means to an end. One of those ends is buying things to improve foods. If you can grow them easily at your own farm without impacting your ability to grow food significantly... you are saving money. You are getting for "free" what you otherwise would have to pay for.

How many people are going to turn down a price of free? And since these spices tend to be more expensive than the food, then growing them would increase profits if they had excess.

Your interpretation of how stealth can work is not the only interpretation. I see it as stealth used to aid in crafting. It's kind of like how you don't usually attribute the design of a hedge maze to the guy who trims it.

Edit: also in my experience, for a group stealth check, how well the rogue rolls does matter to the success of the group check.

We have very different experiences. Your interpretation of stealth is not usual.

 

[Oofta]

Look man, it isn't fair to you, but after I spend 45 minutes to an hour responding to Max, I'm exhausted when I got to this post. So, I'm skipping things because I can't spend another hour and a half on this thread.

6) There might be smaller pastoral towns. Many of them are attacked by raiders. The only other specific examples we got from the Ten Towns, when I looked into them, they had guards, soldiers, militias, I don't remember the exact wording. I remember it was 25 people which was 16% of the population of the town. The other town had a dedicated temple to the God of Warriors, and a famous armory which raises questions "who is buying these weapons and armor on a regular enough schedule to keep them in business?"

7) And how do they hide their villages? Divine Intervention. What luck allows them to always avoid notice? Divine Intervention. This has been a point of contention, I know, but that is the narrative that is being pushed.

8) Dissociated is bad. It means they don't fit into the world, and that is a sign of poor world building.



Because.... they.... should.... allocate.... resources.... to.... defense....since..... living...... is ..... important..... and..... allocating...... resources...... to...... pleasant......expeirences..... includes...... trading...... for...... things...... they...... don't...... already....... have......

Did spacing out every word help you like you thought it would help me?



Halflings making high quality meals is in the lore. That isn't up for debate.

You insisted that if humans had access to easily grown spices, they wouldn't grow them because they are all commercial farmers. That is what I challenged. Not that halflings are trying to be millionaires, that isn't part of the discussion at all. The point was if there is a plant halflings can grow, other people would grow it.

That has nothing to do with money. Money is a means to an end. One of those ends is buying things to improve foods. If you can grow them easily at your own farm without impacting your ability to grow food significantly... you are saving money. You are getting for "free" what you otherwise would have to pay for.

How many people are going to turn down a price of free? And since these spices tend to be more expensive than the food, then growing them would increase profits if they had excess.




We have very different experiences. Your interpretation of stealth is not usual.

I just have to point out yet another fallacy because it keeps getting repeated. It never says halflings are great chefs. While they do enjoy "... discovering new things, even simple things, such as an exotic food" they also enjoy the food that they have. "They grow all the food they need, taking pleasure in every poached egg and piece of toast."

Yeah. Poached eggs and toast. High cuisine indeed. It's all part of their whole schtick of being happy with what they have while still maintaining curiosity an enjoying discovery.

 

[Chaosmancer]

As I said...it is odd to me that you are so hung up on proving that your opinion is "right" because that is an impossibility. The very adventure that you point to to show how lethal a border town in the D&D world can be is the same adventure I point to in order to show how non-lethal it is. There is no shortage of danger in the immediate area around the town, but yet at the end of the day only one townsperson was killed as a result of all that danger. And then a group of non-experienced newbs rolls into town and takes care of all the problems in the span of a month.

You see lethal, I see problematic. And this is comparing a "dangerous" border town. For halflings we are talking about the safe areas of the world, which in your opinion don't exist as livable without upsetting or paying homage some other power but in my opinion is sprinkled all around the map in enough quantity that it supports halflings as a race.

You will never be able to prove an opinion incorrect, nor should someone having a different opinion from your bother you. Multiple people on this thread have laid out and and listed for you the exact things that you are arguing that ONLY APPLY TO YOUR GAME, but you don't seem to be able to understand that these things, in actual fact, ONLY APPLY TO YOUR GAME. I will once again include those things that ONLY APPLY TO YOUR GAME and which will never be able to win you an argument.

1. Danger levels of different areas on the map.
2. Local governmental systems/taxes/feudalism/serfs/fealty/protection.
3. Agricultural systems.
4. The relative power levels and functions of the different gods and how they interact with their client followers.
5. Motivations of any particular group.
6. How raiders "work".

On a previous reply you said "Now, I might disagree with some of that, but it hardly matters. I've been told I'm wrong and making stuff up by people constantly. Therefore, your arguments should at least fall in line with everyone else's assumptions. Otherwise, I'm engaging in half a dozen different realities and premises."

YES. That is what people are trying to tell you. Every single person here has a completely different reality and premise that applies to their game world. Even at my local game among friends...we have three GMs that all have their own "takes" on how some things work that do not necessarily agree, even if we are GMing the same world. There is no "right" way things work, there is simply a basic starting point for everything that you can use to fashion your game however you like it to be. If you fashion your world in such a way that the basic starting ideas for halflings don't work for you, then fine, you do what you did and adjust it accordingly. This doesn't invalidate the basic starting ideas for everyone else "Because they don't work", which is what you are arguing here for some time.

Some of what you say I can agree with, and some of it is clearly differences of opinion. For example, a first level character who is a folk hero might have this as their background "I led a militia to fight off an invading army. " That person isn't a "non-experienced newb". You say that only one person died. I would point out that only one person died so far. Do we imagine if these heroes didn't show up that these threats wouldn't have impacted Phandolin even more? With five different serious threats to their existence that close?

And, I think you are missing a bigger point here. You are ecstaticly pointing out that everyone is engaging in a completely different reality... which means that there is no consensus on what halflings are in the world. No one seems to be able to even agree on what the basic starting point is and how it fits into the basic world, because I keep getting different points of pushback on different facets. If there is not a basic starting point... what do we have?

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, I'm sorry. You just said some of them have the magic I misread that.

AND? I apologize that I misread, it must have been because I thought you were making a point that actually meant something. "Some Deep Gnomes have magic" doesn't prove anything. Especially since, if they aren't all born with it, it adds to the lore telling us that they were originally taught, not divinely blessed.

Yes, the magic exists, that doesn't prove that they were divinely blessed instead of divinely taught in the past, and that their people continue to hold sacred teachings.

So first, it's literally only the PCs that don't have it without a feat, so for balance reasons some very, very, very, very, 1000 more verys, few don't have it. Second, the lore straight up says that they got it from the goddess, not that they believe that they got it from their goddess, so I have proven that in 5e that's where they get it.

Feel free to change it for your game, though.

So, we have established that some Deep Gnomes don't have this magic.

Not enough to matter.

Also, I know I'm the monster who never reads and twists everything, but if you read the MM you will see this little nugget: "This appendix contains statistics for various humanoid nonplayer characters (NPCs) that adventurers might encounter during a D&D campaign, including lowly commoners and mighty archmages. These stat blocks can be used to represent both human and nonhuman NPCs." And the very first thing they say under Customizing NPCs is "here are many easy ways to customize the NPCs in this appendix for your home campaign.... You can add racial traits to an NPC."

Now, I know that you know about these rules, because I've told you about them before. These rules tell us that if I want to have a Deep Gnome Archmage... I can just pull the Archmage NPC statblock without the Deep Gnome magic and this is a perfectly legal option. Encouraged even, because the option to add Deep Gnome Magic is under "customizing" the statblocks. That means that we can use them standard, without Customizing

Yes, you can homebrew an NPC deep gnome without the innate magic. I don't dispute that. As I said above, feel free to do so. It takes the DM deliberately removing it, though, to keep them from having it. Your homebrew doesn't change anything that I've said.

The point was you to think about it.

It was an absurd thing to say, then. The mental gymnastics involved were mighty.

You know, since you said it was impossible that he taught them, like it says he did.

You can't teach innate magic. It's..................innate.

Really? You said that it was impossible that Baravar taught them their magic that they have. The book tells us that he taught them their magic, and that he is responsible for their magic. You decided that that meant he divinely blessed them with innate magic, because it is impossible that they were taught something that is innate.

No it doesn't say that Baravar taught them innate magic. It says magic, which is wizardry and the like. Innate magic is...........innate, not taught.

Except, it isn't innate, as we showed it is not something that every Deep Gnome is born with. And the book specifically says he taught them. So, you have your own version that it is impossible to teach them something that is innate, and it is innate, despite there not being anything that tells us it is actually innate and not something they learn.

It is by RAW explicitly innate. Look at the Deep Gnome entry in the MM AND the Mordenkainen's lore. This is not disputable in any rational manner.

Also, I said "maybe read some adventures" the Monster Manuel and the Volos are decidely not adventures. So, you didn't read about how filthy and full of random crap goblin lairs are. How there are goblins who have a "great treasure" in a bent spoon.

They also in Mines of Phandelver we hear "Some goblin tribes were not above waylaying travelers on the road or in forests and stripping them of their possessions."

Note, it isn't strip them of their valuables. It is all of their possessions. Goblins are not just after silver and gold. They go after a lot of things. In adventures they often have lots of random junk in their lairs that they have taken from other races.

You do realize that taking possessions is secondary to the primary objective of wealth, right? It's an opportunity grab, not the goal. The goal of goblins is not to raid for spoons.