| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| lokilokust |
Posted - 14 Feb 2007 : 20:08:52
i'm curious as to how many people here prefer the way halflings were in previous editions (we're hobbits! only without that pesky copyright infringement!) to what they've become (we're kender! only slightly more boring!)
i do see the advantages of the three basic halfling types, but it just all seems a bit awkward nowadays.
when you folks run games, do you stick with the old tropes or dive in with the new? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| nbnmare |
Posted - 19 Feb 2007 : 05:01:01
Heh, I completely forgot about those desert elves. Bruce Cordell really does like his new subraces, doesnt he?  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 22:31:53
Personally I use 'em all, the old and the new subraces, along with a few real kender from 'elsewhere'.
You can have your cake and eat it too, the old races are the stay-at-home types that have already seen it all and just want to die old and fat in their beds. The new races are for PC's, they are the adventurous 'youngbloods' that just want to get out and see the world. After a time, they start to get a little flabby and their feet start getting hairy and they know its time to pack-it-in and retire.
Remember the differences between Bilbo and frodo? Same thing; it's just a changing of the gaurd, so to speak.
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I stick with the three old species of halflings, the newer versions don't tempt me one bit. The same goes for changes done to gnomes (smaller noses and much else), dwarves (no females with beard and much else) and music (no vinyl (and much else), OK of topic, but it had to be said).
My halflings are mostly based around a combination of Ed's Five Shires book ( from the old Known World Gazetteers ) and the complete book of Gnomes and Halflings from 2ed.
If you want to go all 'old school' then I prefer the demi-humans as CLASSES, not races.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaladorm
Sun, Moon, Wild, Wood, Star, Dark,.....which am I missing? Daemonfey?....
Besides the Lythari, Sea, and Avariel? There is a race of desert Elves living in the Raurin mentioned in the Imaskar novel, a race of Plains Elves mentioned in City of Gold living over in Maztica/Anchorome, and supposedly a race of Snow Elves that got a brief mention on pg.14 of Dragon #236.
Oh, and then their are the Marels.... 
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 06:54:11
Perhaps.
As I see it... it is *because* of this tinker-gnome like aspect pervading Lantan that many people seem to forget that the island itself still has a notable human presence.
Just look at the problems discussed about some of the FR Wiki entries from a while back -- and them classifying Lantan as a purely "gnomish realm."
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 05:42:11
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Essentially, the tinker-like aspect of the gnomes were the result of TSR bringing the concept of the tinker gnomes into the Realms, and also largely because Gond appeared (in the form of a gnome) on the island during the Time of Troubles.
Even with that, I've never thought of any of the gnomes of the Realms being like Krynn's tinker gnomes. A love of technology does not a tinker gnome make. For me, the defining characteristic of a tinker gnome isn't their inventiveness -- it's their lack of anything approaching common sense. I've not seen that in any of Toril's gnomes, so I've never thought of them as tinker gnomes. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 05:30:36
Its a mixed bag . . . didn't care much for the new classes in it, or the luck ability score, but then again, its designed to use bits an pieces of it. I liked the alignment value system, as its kind of an interesting way to keep track of alignment, and I kind of like the "building a race" feature of the book, but I would say this about it . . . don't let the player's build a race when they make their characters, as its too easy to "save" points for a custom racial build. For example, if you have an elf ranger, there is no reason in a "custom" build to spend the "racial points" on martial weapon proficiencies, which ends up making the elf a bit more powerful as they can take things like faster movement rates and trackless step, etc.
The racial builds are cool for a DM that wants even the sub races to have regional differences, however. For example, you could build a Nimbral moon elf that gets bonuses to illusions like a gnome does, as long as you are willing to give up something else from the elf abilities, or are willing to take a level adjustment.
Some of the new spells are interesting, but a lot of them tie into the new classes in the book, which just didn't work for me.
Of the Advanced Player's Manual, Advanced Gamemaster's Guide, or the Advanced Bestiary, the Bestiary is the best one of the Green Ronin "advanced" series, at least in my opinion (monster book but everything in it is a template). |
| lokilokust |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 04:38:49
'the Green Ronin d20 book Advanced Player's Manual'
how is that?
worth looking into? |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 01:17:12
While I'm thinking about it, the Green Ronin d20 book Advanced Player's Manual has some options for "building" your class abilities, so that not every dwarf, elf, halfing, or gnome has the same racial abilities. All of the abilities that you can buy are things that make sense for the race, but they aren't the exact same for all of them (which kind of makes sense . . . while halflings, for example, likely all have a lot in common, there should be some wiggle room).
If you take a bunch of options, moreso than you usually have from the PH or from whatever source you want to use, you can opt to take a LA to gain a few more race specific abilities. So for example you could take a level adjustment and be considered "fey" with all of the immunities and the like that come with it, for example.
Another thing that they do is that you can take a different "set" of ability modifiers, and which ability modifiers you take determines what your favored class is, so that there isn't "one" favored class so much as "halfings that have these abilities tend to be this," which works well for contrasting halfings from a pastoral setting and those that take off to assume the role of a rogue and adventurer. (For example, a dwarf that takes the +2 Con, -2 Int option instead of the standard has barbarian as favored class instead of fighter)
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 01:07:28
Although, to be fair, even "tinker" FR gnomes tend to be actually competant . . . more like gnomoi gnomes from Taladas than the traditional tinker gnomes . . . they may think big and come up with grandiose ideas, but often times they do work. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 Feb 2007 : 00:34:57
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
PS I could be wrong, but were not the Deep gnomes originally a Realms race?
No, they first appeared in D2 Shrine of the Kuo-Toa. They probably became part of the Realms very soon after then.quote:
Originally posted by nbnmare
It could be that they were Realms specific way back in 1st Edition, but you'd have to ask someone with access to 1E sourcebooks to be sure .
Tinker gnomes are a uniquely Dragonlance idea.quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I can well see the changes you propose being both fair and logical, but that should rather be built as a prestige class of some sort in my opinion (I could be wrong, I play 2ed.).
That would mean that only certain mid- and high-level gnomes reflected their culture!
As I said, my knowledge of prestige-classes is limited. My point is that the uniqueness of Lantan gnomes should be based on skills and culture, not upon sub-race.
Essentially, the tinker-like aspect of the gnomes were the result of TSR bringing the concept of the tinker gnomes into the Realms, and also largely because Gond appeared (in the form of a gnome) on the island during the Time of Troubles.
|
| nbnmare |
Posted - 17 Feb 2007 : 23:11:51
But the thing is, a great deal of subraces (possibly even the majority) are based on skills and culture. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 17 Feb 2007 : 17:35:53
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
PS I could be wrong, but were not the Deep gnomes originally a Realms race?
No, they first appeared in D2 Shrine of the Kuo-Toa. They probably became part of the Realms very soon after then.quote:
Originally posted by nbnmare
It could be that they were Realms specific way back in 1st Edition, but you'd have to ask someone with access to 1E sourcebooks to be sure .
Tinker gnomes are a uniquely Dragonlance idea.quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I can well see the changes you propose being both fair and logical, but that should rather be built as a prestige class of some sort in my opinion (I could be wrong, I play 2ed.).
That would mean that only certain mid- and high-level gnomes reflected their culture!
As I said, my knowledge of prestige-classes is limited. My point is that the uniqueness of Lantan gnomes should be based on skills and culture, not upon sub-race.
As for the Deep gnomes; that explains it. I just remembered that the 2ed. version came in a Realms-specific product, but they were not mentioned in the Grey box; I have been wondering about that one. Thanks |
| nbnmare |
Posted - 17 Feb 2007 : 17:18:48
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer]Tinker gnomes are a uniquely Dragonlance idea.
I was referring to deep gnomes/svirfneblin . |
| Faraer |
Posted - 17 Feb 2007 : 17:09:01
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
PS I could be wrong, but were not the Deep gnomes originally a Realms race?
No, they first appeared in D2 Shrine of the Kuo-Toa. They probably became part of the Realms very soon after then.quote:
Originally posted by nbnmare
It could be that they were Realms specific way back in 1st Edition, but you'd have to ask someone with access to 1E sourcebooks to be sure .
Tinker gnomes are a uniquely Dragonlance idea.quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
I can well see the changes you propose being both fair and logical, but that should rather be built as a prestige class of some sort in my opinion (I could be wrong, I play 2ed.).
That would mean that only certain mid- and high-level gnomes reflected their culture! |
| The Sage |
Posted - 17 Feb 2007 : 09:01:11
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Like Ed, I keep the (in general) hairy footed halfling.
That's the same for me as well.
Unless it'll conflict with something I've already established in my campaigns... my halflings are always of the hairy footed kind. 
|
| nbnmare |
Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 20:08:01
Eh no, it's perfectly in line with the official 3E/3.5E subraces, as seen in Monster Manual 1, Races of Faerūn, and the like. If any Lantanese gnome were to take a prestige class, I can think of none more suitable than Faith & Pantheons' Techsmith  (which, incidentally, seems to complement my proposed Lantense gnome stats very well indeed). |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 19:33:58
quote:
Originally posted by nbnmare
If are speaking purely from the perspective of lore, a different culture is in fact one of the most important factors to consider when differentiating subraces.
If we are to venture into the realm of stats, the standard racial abilities of the gnome make little sense for the gnomes of Lantan. They would have little or no exposure to giants, goblins, or kobolds, so why would they receive special training to fight them? I would give them bonuses versus golems and other constructs instead. Of the standard gnome's innate abilities, only prestigation would be of much use to the typical gnome of Lantan; I would replace speak with animals with unseen servant, dancing lights with light, and ghost sound with mage hand. I would also replace their +2 bonus to Listen with a +2 bonus to Appraise, and allow them to have a +2 bonus to any one Craft skill of their choice, rather than only Craft (alchemy).
As for deep gnomes, they were present in the 2nd Edition Monstrous Manual, and no mention was made of them coming from the Realms; in contrast, tinker gnomes were also present in that book, but it was specifically stated that they originated from Krynn. It could be that they were Realms specific way back in 1st Edition, but you'd have to ask someone with access to 1E sourcebooks to be sure .
I can well see the changes you propose being both fair and logical, but that should rather be built as a prestige class of some sort in my opinion (I could be wrong, I play 2ed.). If a rock gnome lived on Lantan he should have the same modifications and if a lanthanese gnome moved to the gnomes of Trielta he would take on their culture, in my opinion.
As for the Deep Gnome, I remember that it came as a loose compendium sheet, either in the 2ed. campaign setting or the appendix, I don't remember which. It could have turned up earlier in another product though. |
| Lemernis |
Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 14:36:32
One of the things that I've always found disconserting about halflings is their comparative strength. I don't care how many pushups a 3 ft. tall midget does, odds are in most cases he's not going to stand a chance against brawny human twice his size. For one thing, his is reach is only going to be half as much due to the short arm length. In terms of basic physics, a creature this size simply would not possess enough muscle and overall body mass to stand toe-to-toe with a human sized creature. Yet in many cases you'll find a halflings that are just as strong--or stonger--than a human.
I know the halfling excels at darting about and confusing the opponent, which is fine--it's the only thing that does make sense with respect to the hin having a prayer in melee.
As far as I'm concerned the racial ability score adjustment of -2 Strength is too little. It results in them often being just as strong as creatures twice their size, in light of the point buy system. I would prefer to see the strongest among the hin comparable to an average human (you'd never see anything above 12 Str, let's say), but with dexterity that is roughly one standard deviation higher than your typical human. (Not sure what that mathematically works out to be.)
I know its fantasy to begin with, and a game, etc., but I think this is one of those aspects of the gaming experience start to break the bubble if you reflect on it. The world need only make sense within its own internal logic, but it seems to work best if it remains rooted in things we can all easily relate to in real life. |
| nbnmare |
Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 12:08:00
If are speaking purely from the perspective of lore, a different culture is in fact one of the most important factors to consider when differentiating subraces.
If we are to venture into the realm of stats, the standard racial abilities of the gnome make little sense for the gnomes of Lantan. They would have little or no exposure to giants, goblins, or kobolds, so why would they receive special training to fight them? I would give them bonuses versus golems and other constructs instead. Of the standard gnome's innate abilities, only prestigation would be of much use to the typical gnome of Lantan; I would replace speak with animals with unseen servant, dancing lights with light, and ghost sound with mage hand. I would also replace their +2 bonus to Listen with a +2 bonus to Appraise, and allow them to have a +2 bonus to any one Craft skill of their choice, rather than only Craft (alchemy).
As for deep gnomes, they were present in the 2nd Edition Monstrous Manual, and no mention was made of them coming from the Realms; in contrast, tinker gnomes were also present in that book, but it was specifically stated that they originated from Krynn. It could be that they were Realms specific way back in 1st Edition, but you'd have to ask someone with access to 1E sourcebooks to be sure . |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 11:36:14
quote:
Originally posted by nbnmare
I'm speaking from the perspective of lore, not "balance" or "coolness". For all Forgotten Realms gnomes be identical to gnomes everwhere else in the D&D multiverse makes little sense. Although AFAIK it has never been specifically stated whether gnomes evolved on Faerun or arrived there from elsewhere as with elves and dwares, we do know that gnomes have resided in the Realms for at least 5,000 years, since the Netherese began to enslave them in -3649 DR. Given the 'fast evolution' that's present in the Realms, five millenia is plenty of time for at least one unique subrace to appear. In fact, the Netherese obviously liked their magical experimentation, so an offshoot of gnomes altered by Netherese magic doesn't exactly fall outside the realms of improbability.
The introduction of a new subrace doesn't have to remove any logic or ignore established continuity at all. From what few snippets of info on the gnome realm of Songfarla we have, we know that rock gnomes and svirfneblin live there, but there has never been any source that states *only* these two subraces live there. A new gnome subrace unique to that area would therefore not contradict established lore in any way. A new subrace of gnome akin to Dragonlance's tinker gnomes could also quite easily be added to Lantan without overriding anything that has been previously said regarding the island.
Sorry for the somewhat grumpy tone of my first post. Now, the thing is, that in my opinion the differences would be cultural, not racial. There's no need to give humans a third leg just to sett them apart from humans in other worlds. The gnomes and halflings of the realms has had so little attention that they could just as well just have established the cultures of these races to a farther degree. Why introduce something new when you have not fully developed the old? I have the same problem with the star elves and wood elves, these could have been cultural variations. The dwarven sub-races, living in very different areas I have no problem with, the conditions would make these changes logical. The gnomes of Lanthan would not need more than a strong cultural dedication to Gond; why make them a sub race?
PS I could be wrong, but were not the Deep gnomes originally a Realms race? In that case there is already a pure Realmsian gnome. |
| Kaladorm |
Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 11:15:45
Bah of course, sea elves, can't believe I forgot them , oh and the Avariel.
Do the Lythari count as elves or shapeshifters?- |
| nbnmare |
Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 10:47:45
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Well, to me it is rather the opposite, I would rather have fewer sub-races and don't see the need to include more just to balance the races. Why would there be a need for another gnomish race? There wasn't even a need for the new elven sub-races in my opinion. Stuffing things into the realms just for "balance" and Coolness"or changing the established to make it "more up to date"removes all interior logic and continuity in the Realms with time.
Just the private opinions of a grumbler.
I'm speaking from the perspective of lore, not "balance" or "coolness". For absolutely all Forgotten Realms gnomes be identical to gnomes everwhere else in the D&D multiverse makes very little sense. Although AFAIK it has never been specifically stated whether gnomes evolved on Faerun or arrived there from elsewhere as with elves and dwarfs*, we do know that gnomes have resided in the Realms for at least 5,000 years, since the Netherese began to enslave them in -3649 DR. Given the 'fast evolution' that's present in the Realms, five millenia is plenty of time for at least one unique subrace to appear. In fact, given that the Netherese liked their magical experimentation *a lot*, an offshoot of gnomes altered by Netherese magic doesn't exactly fall outside the realms of probability.
The introduction of a new subrace doesn't have to remove any logic or ignore established continuity at all. For example, from what few snippets of info on the gnome realm of Songfarla we've been given we know that rock gnomes and svirfneblin live there, but there has never been any source that states *only* these two subraces live there. A new gnome subrace unique to that area would therefore not contradict established lore in any way. A new subrace of gnome akin to Dragonlance's tinker gnomes could also quite easily be added to Lantan without overriding anything that has been previously said regarding the island.
EDIT: Essentially, a new subrace doesn't have to be a group that supposedly lives all over the Realms but we've simply never heard of them before (as with planetouched humans and wild elves), they could simply come from one specific area that has seen little or no mention in previously published material (as with ghostwise halflings, star elves, and urdunnir).
* AFAIK it's also never been said whether halflings evolved in the Realms either, though we do not the d'jen of Calimshan brought both human and halfling slaves with them around -7,800 DR. It's quite possible that most modern day halflings of the Realms are descended from the halflings of Calimshan (I say most, because there will of couse be a tiny fraction of halflings descended from emmigrants from elsewhere).
quote:
Originally posted by Kaladorm
Sun, Moon, Wild, Wood, Star, Dark,.....which am I missing? Daemonfey?....
I actually miscounted; there are in fact *nine* elf subraces: aquatic, avariel, dark/drow, lythari, moon, star, sun, wild, and wood.
I suppose you could also count both daemonfey and celadrins as elf subraces, in which case there are eleven .
EDIT: oh, and there's also a unique Maztican elven subrace, but AFAIK it hasn't even been given a name, let alone explored in detail. And of course, some people also place ghost elves and/or snow elves in Faerūn. |
| Sian |
Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 10:30:38
averials and sea i think he thinks of |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 10:24:34
Sea and the Lythari (sp?) were the last, at least to my thinking. |
| Kaladorm |
Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 10:13:54
quote:
Originally posted by nbnmare
, especially since there now *eight* FR elf subraces
Sun, Moon, Wild, Wood, Star, Dark,.....which am I missing? Daemonfey?....
|
| Jorkens |
Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 09:11:09
quote:
Originally posted by nbnmare
They didn't just retcon the Realms by adding core D&D elements, they also retconned it by *removing* core D&D elements (stout halflings and tallfellow halflings) and by adding unique FR halflings. Of course, they also added unique FR subraces of dwarf and elf, though oddly enough they didn't add a unique FR subrace of gnome. Considering that in 2E FR dwarves already had five subraces, and elves had six, gnomes and halflings were the species most in need of more. I really don't see why we couldn't have had five halfling subraces in the Realms, especially since there now *eight* FR elf subraces
Well, to me it is rather the opposite, I would rather have fewer sub-races and don't see the need to include more just to balance the races. Why would there be a need for another gnomish race? There wasn't even a need for the new elven sub-races in my opinion. Stuffing things into the realms just for "balance" and Coolness"or changing the established to make it "more up to date"removes all interior logic and continuity in the Realms with time.
Just the private opinions of a grumbler. |
| MerrikCale |
Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 02:12:54
I prefer the new. The old version was just too "Tolkien" |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 16 Feb 2007 : 00:47:40
Also, in favor of the old look, look at it this way--one very effective tactic against an enemy is to appear "cute and harmless", causing your enemy to underestimate you. |
| nbnmare |
Posted - 15 Feb 2007 : 20:37:16
They didn't just retcon the Realms by adding core D&D elements, they also retconned it by *removing* core D&D elements (stout halflings and tallfellow halflings) and by adding unique FR halflings. Of course, they also added unique FR subraces of dwarf and elf, though oddly enough they didn't add a unique FR subrace of gnome. Considering that in 2E FR dwarves already had five subraces, and elves had six, gnomes and halflings were the species most in need of more. I really don't see why we couldn't have had five halfling subraces in the Realms, especially since there now *eight* FR elf subraces |
| Faraer |
Posted - 15 Feb 2007 : 19:52:01
I think the new lightfoot halflings which look like scaled-down elves are a cowardly way to glam halflings up, and I don't understand the thinking that making the whole race adventurous makes them more attractive as PCs.
Even if I liked them, Wizards would have no business retconning the Realms with core D&D elements just because they're new and 'core'. Real Realms halflings are hobbits except less definitely English, as described in GAZ8 The Five Shires. |
| ShadezofDis |
Posted - 15 Feb 2007 : 15:19:56
I've always thought of Halflings and Kender as distinctly different and I don't really see them being "similar" in 3rd ed (other than the obvious short and thin bit)
I've never thought of them as being hobbits, hobbits are LoTR and halflings are D&D, never even crossed my mind that they were too similar, just don't matter to me :)
Anyhow, I'm keeping ALL the halflings. I like the old school halflings, I grew up with them and they are halflings through and through to me. I also LOVED Darksun's take on halflings and the 3rd ed halflings have a decent amount of "Darksun halfling" feel to me. I find the distinction between the subraces of halflings to be almost exactly like that of the elves, Moon and Sun elves vs Wood and Wild elves = Tallfellow and stouts vs Ghostwise and the other "more feral" feeling halflings.
At least that's my current take on it, ask me again in a few months and I might have a different twist on it ;D |
|
|
