Halfling Love

Some folks have accused me of being down on the Halflings. Let me set the record straight right here and now: I LOVE the little guys.

Now halfling thieves (or any other bullshit aberration) can go to hell. But halflings as presented in the original Basic and Expert sets are a great little class, and one that I personally feel has a great deal of role-playing potential, as well as some real adventuring skills.

“Adventuring skills? Ha!” says the the un-believer. “Maybe up until the party starts hitting Name level. But once the Halfling reaches 8th, they’re pretty much topped out in 'skills' and 'abilities,' even when using the new rules presented in the B/X Companion. Come on, JB…if you really loved the Halfling, you’d be playing Pathfinder or 4th Edition, right?”

Wrong-o, pal.

And let me tell you MY inspiration when it comes to Halflings…it sure ain’t no halfling thief. As originally imagined by Messrs. Gygax, Arneson, and Tolkien I’m all about the doughty halfling warrior. You know, the one who carries a sword instead of a walking stick? The "Took-ish Hobbit," in other words.

Artwork to back it up and fire the imagination? You bet. The Willingham piece inside White Plume Mountain is pretty good, as is Jeff Dee’s work in the Expert set on pages X6 and X16. Contrast those with the stupid little fat man in Mentzer’s Basic!

However, for my favorite halfling warrior illos, it doesn’t get any sweeter than the halfling spitfire inside the 1st edition Dungeon Masters Guide, pages 170-173. Look at that little guy go…he is the first one to step up and Lunge, dammit, LUNGE…sticking salamanders and stone giants and getting ready to carve himself some troll steaks. Look at that dude with his little skull cap helm and main gauche. That’s MY halfling, boy-o!

[only wish I knew who the artist was...David S. LaForce?]

But let’s go back to the B/X Halfling shall we? So much tougher than the AD&D Halfling after all (What?! you say). Damn straight. Eight full levels (compared to 5 or 6 in AD&D), and better saving throws than a fighter of equal level…plus none of this “max strength 17” garbage. The B/X Halfling may take a knock in hit dice (D6 instead of the fighter’s D8) but at least he can get the +3 to hit and damage of a standard fighter. In AD&D, he’s limited to +1 only…and that’s in a rule set with bloated ability bonuses!

Anyway, the D6 hit points per level isn’t that bad…I mean we ARE talking about a dude that weighs 30-50 pounds, right? He’s still as tough as old leather…tougher than any city-dweller human (thieves, magic-users) and equal to paladins (i.e. clerics) and elves. No, the halfling doesn’t get as many hit points as a dwarf, but then he doesn’t have those stone bones that sink in water either!

; )

Yes, the halfling has a limitation on the weapons he (or she) may use…though of course this only matters if you use the optional Variable Weapon Damage chart. Otherwise, the halfling does the same D6 damage everyone else does (and with Strength as a Prime Requisite, he can boost that ability right from the get-go to do more damage). Truly, at the low levels the halfling is a formidable warrior.

But let’s look at the halfling adventurer’s other skills and abilities. No, not cheaper armor (you’re probably going to have to pay a halfling to make such tiny suits of mail…and even though less metal is used, it takes halflings longer to mine it. Purchasing it cheap from Big Folks just means needing to higher more guards to protect shipments from bandits and highwaymen that would prey on halfling caravans. Net result: same price). No, I’m talking about the normal special abilities inherent in any member of the halfling adventurer class: saving throws, accuracy, armor class, initiative, and concealment.

SAVES: According to the Basic set, halflings get a straight +2 bonus across the board on all saves compared to their fighter counterpart (this is increased to +4 in the Cook/Marsh rules, though I consider this a typo and have corrected it in my B/X Companion tables). Even with my “nerfing” correction, an 8th level halfling has the same saves as a 12th level fighter in every category save Dragon breath…and what halfling in her right mind is going to attack a dragon directly anyway? Outsmart, outsmart, outsmart!

MISSILE ACCURACY: considering Dexterity is another Prime Requisite of halflings (and can thus be raised at the time of character creation) many halflings will have great ability to hit with missile weapons. Missile weapons are the “great equalizer” (no damage penalties for low strength and the same damage for every weapon) and halflings are great shooters. Coupled with their concealment abilities, they make ideal snipers and bushwhackers, and because of their small size they’re probably low down on the priority list for opponents to “take out.” In B/X D&D, halflings move the same speed as anyone else, so a lightly armored halfling will be able to shoot, move, and reset without a huge fear of being run-down by a longer-legged opponent.

ARMOR CLASS: +2 bonus against creatures larger than man-sized? This is your ogre-killer folks. No wonder ol’ Sticker up there (as I call the halfling in DMG illustrations) is all about leading the charge into melee. Plate mail + shield + average dexterity = AC 0 at 1st level. A Dexterity of 13 (remember, raise that Prime Requisite) means AC -1. Let’s look at some of those chances to hit for large monsters:

Gnolls – 19 or better to hit AC -1 (10% chance)
Bugbears – 17 or better to hit AC -1 (20% chance)
Ogres – 16 or better to hit AC -1 (25% chance)

Now a chance is still a chance, but let’s play the Law of Averages game.

Gnoll average damage per round versus Halfling: .5…7 rounds to kill.
Bugbear average DPR: 1…3.5 rounds to kill.
Ogre average DPR 1.375…2.5 rounds to kill.

A halfling with a 13 Strength will average 1.8 DPR against any of these opponents, killing a gnoll in 5 rounds, a bugbear in 8 rounds, and an ogre in 11 rounds. However, if you factor in a possible halfling first strike from a missile weapon, these drop to 4.1, 7.2, and 9.7. An individual halfling will generally kill a gnoll in one-on-one combat, a 2nd level halfling will generally take a bugbear, and a 3rd level Halfling (average 10 points!) will give an ogre a pretty tough time.

Also realize that, due to size restrictions, larger-than-man-sized creatures will probably NOT be able to “gang up” on a Halfling warrior. This works in the halfling’s favor, of course (always better to face singular attacks than multiple), and a 4th Level Halfling Hero with Str/Dex 13 should be able to take any of these foes in single combat, even without magic weapons:

Hero vs. Gnoll: 3.2 rounds to kill versus 28 rounds to kill.
Hero vs. Bugbear: 5.6 rounds to kill versus 14 rounds to kill.
Hero vs. Ogre: 7.6 rounds to kill versus 10.2 rounds to kill.

Our man Sticker from the DMG drawing could take an average sized Stone giant single-handedly, without missile weapons, so long as he was 7th level and armed with +2 arms and armor. He’d still be the odds on favorite with only had a +1 shield, but it would be real tight (though see the Initiative Bonus below).

Compare that to a 7th level fighter (same 13 Str/Dex, same gear: +2 plate, shield, and sword): the fighter takes the stone giant in 9.6 rounds. The stone giant crushes the fighter in five (5).

Advantage: Halfling.

INITIATIVE: Shouldn’t it go without saying that he who strikes first has a better chance of winning a fight? Yes, yes, I realize that it’s NOT always the smart thing to jump aggressively into combat (I was a fencer, remember?)…but in the ABSTRACT combat of B/X D&D, initiative is simply a matter of who gets to DEAL DAMAGE FIRST. Maybe the round IS composed of elaborate feints and parries (or flying elbows and head butts), but the guy (or gal) with the higher D6 roll is the one that gets to “put the hurting on” before his opponent can do unto him.

The initiative bonus is only for INDIVIDUAL initiative…what one might call the “dueling scenario,” and halflings should already receive a bonus due to their high (Prime Requisite) Dexterity. However, DMs should account for the size advantage of a halfling when it comes to determining how many foes can actually engage ‘em in a single round. While I generally rule that two ogres can attack one man-sized opponent and three orcs or goblins can attack a human (that isn't surrounded), I’d reduce these numbers to 1 and 2 (respectively) for Halflings…and possibly 1 and 1 depending on the circumstance. Halflings are runty and this is an ADVANTAGE, especially in CQB. Yes, they break easily (compared to fighters…they’re surprisingly tough compared to other PCs), but they’re slippery and maneuverable and players (including DMs) need to remember this and take it into account within the chaos of a tunnel melee.

One-on-one with an initiative bonus means the halfling is getting the chance to do damage FIRST, more often than not. Since many foes will be concentrating on (literally) bigger threats first, this just buys the halfling MORE time to end the battle quickly.

CONCEALMENT: From page B10:

Outdoors, a halflings are difficult to spot, having the ability to seemingly vanish into woods or underbrush. Halflings have only a 10% chance of being detected in this type of cover, and even in dungeons there is a one-third chance (a roll of 1 or 2 on a 1d6) that a Halfling will not be seen in normal light if the character finds some cover (such as shadows), and remains absolutely quiet and still.

Compare this to the description of the Thief skill Hide in Shadows:

Hide in Shadows cannot be done unless the thief remains perfectly still (not moving or attacking).

These are two very different abilities. Let’s look at the first part of the halfling’s concealment ability.

“Outdoors, halflings are difficult to spot, having the ability to seemingly vanish into woods or underbrush. Halflings have only a 10% chance of being detected in this type of cover…”

Nothing here implies that a halfling has to do anything at all to be virtually undetectable (a 90% concealment rating is equal to a 12th level Master Thief’s ability to Hide in Shadows). So long as there is “woods or underbrush” into which the Halfling can disappear, the little guy (or gal) is gone. Likewise, nothing indicates that movement or attacking will break this cover, nor that a Halfling is somehow prevented from disappearing in plain sight so long as there is the proper cover to “seeming vanish” into! Basically, if the halfling is outdoors and not caught in the open (or in a desert or bare rock face), they have a Get Out of Jail Free card that can be immediately played.

Every halfling that encounters a possible opponent in the wilderness should immediately “go to ground” so as to observe and analyze potential danger. No, your buddies are probably going to be spotted (like the trolls nab the dwarves in The Hobbit), but YOU can escape and come back later with a well-timed rescue attempt or ambush! Only a RETARDED halfling would NOT disappear as soon as an encounter appears…even a surprised halfling (assuming he is not immediately engaged and attacked) should bug out as his first action.

Regarding the second part of the halfling’s concealment ability:

“…even in dungeons there is a one-third chance (a roll of 1 or 2 on a 1d6) that a Halfling will not be seen in normal light if the character finds some cover (such as shadows), and remains absolutely quiet and still.”

This appears to be the exact same as a thief’s ability to Hide in Shadows except that it uses a D6 rather than a D% (and the chance is fixed at 4th level thief ability). I presume “normal light” is normal for a dungeon (torches, lanterns, etc.).

How and when the halfling can use this ability isn’t discussed; one might infer that the demihuman can simply vanish into shadows as he does into the wilderness…a mighty useful ability. Also left unmentioned is who rolls to check if the Halfling remains “not seen.” UNlike the thief ability, there’s no mention that the halfling will thing himself successful at hiding, even when he’s not (it is specified in the thief description that DM makes the percentage roll). My interpretation: the halfling’s player makes the roll and immediately knows whether or not the character has failed to hide!

“Oh, crap! There’s not enough cover here to conceal me! My foot/cloak/sword is sticking out!” Guess it’s time to fight…good thing the Halfling has that initiative bonus!

The halfling character is a savvy warrior, not some incompetent, 2nd rate fighter. And with the multiple attack options provided to the experienced halfling in the B/X Companion…I’d be happy to play one myself! Have at you!
; )

Player Versus DM Expectations

Not-so-hot-on-the-heels of some other posts, I figured I better put some of these thoughts down before I forget them...

A couple days ago, I posted about un-finished dungeons...basically, regarding my poor track record of ultimately completing or "cleaning out" pre-packaged adventures. The comments generated a lot of food for thought for Yours Truly.

Later I read this post over at Father Dave's regarding the thief...a post I think is fascinating for its implication in adventure/dungeon design. Today, I was reading about Chgowiz's wife's encounter with a smoke dragon...and how it nearly led to despair and a throw-up-your-hands-and-dice moment at the table.

I kinda' wanna' tie all this stuff together.

In designing an adventure module for publishing (still sharpening that axe, folks!) I've been going over a lot of the do's and don't's I think it's important to consider. Certainly I don't want to repeat bad trends of the past or do something that doesn't result in a fun adventure romp for players. But let's look at expectations for a second.

While I am a big believer in background "creative agendas" I believe few, if any people, actually come to a game table with an initial attitude that can be described as narratavist or gamist. I think it's fairly safe to say that MOST people sit down at the gaming table wanting #1 to have fun and #2 to escape a bit from the humdrum of "everyday life." Once they've had THOSE needs met, similar to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs...only THEN do they start looking to meet these secondary creative agendas.

In other words, if they're not getting the fun and the escape, they never bother to worry about the other stuff.

Now I think that these primary goals (of which escape is probably secondary to fun except for folks with slightly skewed psyches...for whatever reason) are fairly explicit in the text of earlier versions of Dungeons and Dragons...especially B/X D&D. But they sure seem to get lost in later versions, which instead extoll slightly different objectives, perhaps based on the perceived need of their target gaming community. Game balance, in whatever form that phrase rears its ugly head, is considered to be paramount IN ORDER TO HAVE FUN, according to the rules...and this is a justification for the extensive and intricate rules of editions like the 3rd and 4th edition.

But game balance is NOT required to have fun...thinking so is an F'ing illusion, folks. Balance is only an important component of fun (and not even a necessary one!) in games focused on the GAMIST aspect of play, where players want to be on an equal and level playing field.

And again, it's not even necessary of gamist play, as some players prefer an even GREATER challenge, with the odds stacked against 'em. For example, I've ALWAYS been drawn to the idea of the doughty halfling warrior, sticking it to the big guys, ever since I saw the illustrations in the DMG in the "random dungeon section." Look at that little guy go! THAT's the character, I want to play!

[sorry, I don't have a copy of my DMG with me at the moment...I'll post an image later if I can find one]

So putting aside the whole discussion of whether later edition characters (or earlier edition for that matter) are balanced against each other, look at the advice given to DMs in adventure design as to how to balance encounters in adventure design: basically, it boils down to "make sure you have a little something of everything for all character types." There should be some undead, for example, for clerics, or some challenges that can only be overcome using a thief's skills. There should be some fighting for fighters and some places where a magic-user comes in handy, and perhaps a few instances where character racial abilities (like elves ability to find secret doors) come in handy.

Gross!

To me, this feels plainly contrived. Not only THAT, it also ends up limiting players' choice as they are suddenly required to take "a little bit of everything" with them into the dungeon. If they don't, they face potential dead ends (as Father Dave found). What's more, you get that "last-person-to-arrive-takes-the-class-no-one-wants" mentality that Frothy Friar talks about, most often seen (by both him and me at least) with the cleric.

[actually, in my old campaigns the "last picked" role was probably split equal between clerics and thieves...and these weren't even D4 hit dice thieves!]

Frankly, to a player this sucks. Like it or not, one of a player's first two needs on the Gamers' Hierarchy of Needs pyramid is having fun. BEFORE "meeting the challenge." And if I get forced into a role because it's necessary based on a game design meant to cater to the possibility or expectation of a mixed group of adventurers, than you just chopped a chunk off my free will, and part of my enjoyment just went with it!

So let's talk about a DM's expectations and "hierarchy of needs." Are they different? Somewhat. I think DMs want to have fun, too, but instead of the fun of escaping into the shoes of a different person, they get the fun of "playing God;" being a creator of worlds, in other words.

And here's where there can be a bit of a disconnect.

While certainly the DM seat attracts an egomaniacal variety of individual [note: Me as Exhibit A, blogging my little blog thoughts] that's not the point of the Role of DM. It really ain't. World creation, or reality creation, or story creation...whatever you want to call it...is a collaborative effort between DM and players.

It's got to be, otherwise you aren't playing an RPG. Instead you're doing a play with improvised lines and some dice rolls.

And while I LOVE the theater (actor, remember?) it's not anything theatrical that attracts me to RPGs. REALLY. Like many, I am drawn to the escapism part (which is also something that draws me to acting) which to me is fun...but there is no urge to talk in funny voices or dress up in costume, at least when I am acting as a player (as a DM I will use different voices to distinguish between different NPCs in conversation). I do like imagining myself as an "adventurer" (whether heroic, roguish, or an outright villain makes no nevermind to me) and exploring a fantasy setting. I don't think I'm alone in this, either.

The DM's role, sometimes forgotten, is one of facilitator. What the DM does is facilitate this world/story/reality creation. Adventures are designed, settings are written, NPCs and obstacles placed...and then there is acting as adjudicator and referee for the players as they explore the game world. This exploration, in collaboration with everyone at the table, is what CREATES the shared environment. NOT the DM alone.

When a DM "puts on airs" and thinks he or she is wholly responsible for world creation they are deluding themselves. Pure and simple. If you want to author a world, write a book, don't play an RPG. If your players abandon your game, all the background and backstory in the world means nothing.

AND (this is the important part) if you DO allow players free reign in your carefully designed game (in other words, if you're a good and competent DM that doesn't force your players down your own linear story arcs, etc.), they are going to muck it all up. They will go "off book." They will want to push the game and exploration into areas you haven't detailed or thought of. They will not "do what you want them to."

It's like the talk of these huge ass adventure modules. The DM may make some giant, ambitious adventure...that frankly bores the hell out of the players. At least if the players intend their characters to do more than explore that single adventure over the life of the campaign.

Now I already said in the earlier post that some modules, like B2 and X1, are excluded from my bile on the subject as they are intended to be something of introductory campaigns. They provide an extensive setting for characters of the requisite levels to explore in order to learn the Basic and Expert rules.

Other module sets, like the Slaver series (A1-4) and the GDQ series ARE, in fact, actual campaign settings. They are designed to take place over many, many game sessions as adventurers plumb the depths of their multi-dungeon scenarios. When running through one of these, your players are pretty much committed to the long haul. The same is true for the Desert of Desolation (I3-I5) series and even I1:Dwellers of the Forbidden City (if played as simply its original, tournament "rescue the prisoners scenario" the adventure is short-and-sweet, otherwise it provides an extensive sandbox for campaign game play).

But other "one-off" modules are simply ridiculous.

Let's look at I6: Ravenloft. Garbage. This is billed as a single adventure...and one from which there is no escape for the players until it's completed (killer fog!). How many encounters are there in this module?

103. Of 45 modules I reviewed for "# of numbered encounters" only one other module had more: X3: Curse of Xanathon with 107 by the somewhat inconsistent Douglas Niles.

As a DM prepping a game or a player slogging through one, that's a nightmare. By contrast, B2 only has 64 encounters (outside the Keep) and X1 has 51...both of these can provide multiple sessions of gameplay and multiple levels of advancement. What if someone is holding to a strict "no more than one level gained per adventure completed" rule? After weeks of exploring Ravenloft you get one level? That's a shit-load of work for little pay-off, in my opinion.

[the idea of a high-level magic-user vampire isn't even very original...Q1 had the moody gothic vampire world with the 15th level magic-user vampire in 1980, folks]

Compare that to adventures like S1 and S2. The Tomb of Horrors has 33 numbered encounter areas, White Plume Mountain has 28. Those are nice little adventures that can be finished in one or two sessions. These are good examples of single adventures, as opposed to a campaign setting.

Just as with "world creation" DMs and designers can go over-board with adventure/module design. Except for campaign settings (like the Stonehell Dungeon mega-dungeon, for example) it's generally unnecessary to have too much wedged into an adventure. Usually, the players are not looking for anything beyond their basic objectives (unless understanding a dungeon's "history" is required for resolving a particular "puzzle" or challenge). The rest of that shit is superfluous. It's design masturbation.

So with a little time and energy, I could probably boil all these thoughts down into some Great Commandment of Adventure Design. However, I'm not going to do that right now. Instead I'd like to let this post stew a bit while I work on an actual writing project (the aforementioned adventure module I'm doing) and give readers a chance to weigh in and comment on the thoughts expressed here. These I will later distill into some Commandments (don't even know how many yet!) so feel free to try your hand at your own...or blow me out of the water if you disagree with anything written! Ha! I'm feeling a little rambunctious this morning, I guess.

Probably the smell of the NFL play-offs in the air.

: )