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

[FrozenNorth]

So...

Gnome: Fighter (Artillery, Light Blade, and Pick Specialization), Priest (Druid), Ranger (Swarm keeper), Rogue (Tinkering and Perception focus), Wizard (Illusionist)

Halfling: Fighter (Bow, Light Blade, and Sling Specialization), Priest(Cleric or Druid), Rogue (Pickpocket and Stealth focus)

Unless we are limiting to the original 12 classes, I would also add Artificer to the Rock Gnome list, as well as Rogue (Arcane Trickster).

 

[Gammadoodler]

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.

Enhh. I act like a rant is a rant when it goes on continuously for a while with no break in pace, no clear structured argument, no persuasive evidence, and only the vaguest evidence that the author plays the game or understands at all the classes they are describing.

• Ninjas are monks. Or rogues. Donezo..mission accomplished
• Witches are warlocks or wizards. The only differences are the relative passions for millinery...Done here as well.
• "God following fighters that sometimes go questing" only describes clerics if you squint, actually describes paladins pretty dead on, kind of describes some fighters, and has barely anything to do with monks.
• Sucking up NRG...seems like something you're making up.
• Having fists and feet of deadliness makes significantly more sense than most other magic D&D bs-ery. Like... There are people on Earth who can do some of this stuff.

I'm not going to claim they need to exist. @tetrasodium brought up some fair complaints about them. I happen to think that a class focused on physical/spiritual self-perfection does fill a different enough thematic niche to be worthwhile and the mechanics of it are different enough that you feel it in play.

 

[Minigiant]

Unless we are limiting to the original 12 classes, I would also add Artificer to the Rock Gnome list, as well as Rogue (Arcane Trickster).

I was thinking 6 classes

1. Fighter (By weapon or Armor Spec)
2. Priest (by priest type)
3. Rogue (By skill focus)
4. Trickster (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock)
5. Warrior (Barbarians, Monks, Paladins, Rangers)
6. Wizard (By School)

So

Gnome: Fighter (Artillery, Light Blade, and Pick Specialization), Priest (Druid), Rogue (Tinkering and Perception focus), Warrior (Ranger), Wizard (Illusionist)

Halfling: Fighter (Bow, Light Blade, and Sling Specialization), Priest(Cleric or Druid), Rogue (Pickpocket and Stealth focus)

The thing to me is that Halflings are rather limited as a culture in training PCs directly. Would halfling villages train other classes or would a ranger or wizard be the only ones in the world?

 

[Umbran]

Weird how you act like a statement is a rant, and missing the points I'm making.... Dumb as ****. .... Go on, idiot, give me all your so-called superior reasons...

Mod Note:
You dismiss, call people idiots, curse at them... and wonder why they think you are ranting, rather than giving reasoned points?

For the insults and the foul language, which are both against the board rules - you are done in this thread. Next time, treat people well.

 

[cmad1977]

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.

I’ll have whatever this guys having. Must be wiiiiild.

 

[Maxperson]

The thing to me is that Halflings are rather limited as a culture in training PCs directly. Would halfling villages train other classes or would a ranger or wizard be the only ones in the world?

All races have all classes. What we are discussing would just be the most common. While significantly less common than the common classes, Wizards and such wouldn't be terribly rare.

Halflings have also traditionally had outriders on dogs and such, so I could see Ranger(Beast Master) as well.

 

[Minigiant]

All races have all classes. What we are discussing would just be the most common. While significantly less common than the common classes, Wizards and such wouldn't be terribly rare.

Halflings have also traditionally had outriders on dogs and such, so I could see Ranger(Beast Master) as well.

The thought experiment is more ore less "Oe was recreated today and nonhumans were limited in class options, which classes would the races be limited to if the class options were expanded"

For example dwarves where limited to fighting man and thief before. However many see a dwarven forge/rune priest and battelragers as a core images of D&D dwarves. So Dwarves would be limited to

Barbarian (Battlerager) Fighter (Aze, Crossbow, and Hammer Spec) Priest (Forge or Rune) Rogue (Lockpicking and Trap Disarming Focus)

Now do it for gnomes and halflings.

 

[Maxperson]

The thought experiment is more ore less "Oe was recreated today and nonhumans were limited in class options, which classes would the races be limited to if the class options were expanded"

For example dwarves where limited to fighting man and thief before. However many see a dwarven forge/rune priest and battelragers as a core images of D&D dwarves. So Dwarves would be limited to

Barbarian (Battlerager) Fighter (Aze, Crossbow, and Hammer Spec) Priest (Forge or Rune) Rogue (Lockpicking and Trap Disarming Focus)

Now do it for gnomes and halflings.

Then add Ranger(Beast Master) and Bard(love of stories, curiosity, music(PHB), etc.). And of course the others already listed.

 

[Nellisir]

...Oracles, Inquisitors and Summoners...

...oh my.

Pathfinder. He's conflating Pathfinder and D&D. I think. Moot point now.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Then add Ranger(Beast Master) and Bard(love of stories, curiosity, music(PHB), etc.). And of course the others already listed.

Maybe also Monk (Drunken master)