PDA

View Full Version : Fighting Giants: The Halfling's Dilemma



Mr. Mask
2014-05-14, 01:43 PM
In DnD and other games, there generally is a lot taken for granted when smaller creatures fight bigger ones. Humans fighting giants or dragons, or hobbits fighting humans or ogres. It is taken especially for granted in the case of hobbits and other playable smallfolk (for example, hobbits don't get reach disadvantages like humans versus giants, despite reach being a serious problem for them).

Simply, a smaller creature (ignoring other factors) has less mass (so it takes less force to destroy their smaller organs, etc.), less reach, a smaller stride, can wear less armour, carries less, uses smaller weapons (less damaging, less penetrative, less range), and is physically weaker.
There are other factors which may come into play to reduce these problems (like if dwarves had stronger muscles to balance having less muscle), or other advantages which can apply (like if they were psychic), but generally speaking--most advantages ought to work just as well or better if they were human sized or bigger (limited by physics--a horse-sized spider can't survive its own mass).

There are also advantages to small size, some of which get stepped over. A small creature can have better control of their own weight, which can translate to being dexterous, agile, quick, a good climber and/or swimmer, etc. (that isn't to say they will have any of those qualities, but being small does make it easier). Its easier to hide, you're a smaller target, and it's easier to fit into small places (so if you dig a little tunnel system, less likely to collapse, and bigger creatures need to dig it up to get in). There are some economic advantages in a small size: needing less to eat (not in hobbits' case) and less material in general for your tools and items, needing less space, can transport more people for the same energy, etc.. If your intelligence is normal, then you perform just as well as a bigger creature in most academic pursuits.
These advantages don't hold for larger creatures



So, the question is... how can you plausibly get around this problem, so you can still have halfling adventurers who aren't underpowered?

One way would be game balance. Give bonus points to players who play as weaker races, kind of thing.

Another is specialization--halflings can avoid fighting and specialize in burglary and wit.

Finally would be justifying factors. With hobbits eating as much as they do, it's reasonable to expect those calories are going to some benefit.

For example, you have halflings be so very fast for their size that it's a 50-50 as to whether they or the human come out on top (under certain conditions). You might cut them in half easily, or they might get behind you and start disabling organs (which to them are very large targets). Spear versus sword, basically. With that example, there'd still be circumstances the hobbit couldn't use their speed, but there are also circumstances where the human can't use their greater strength/reach/etc..


Any thoughts on this? How the halfling and other small creatures (including dwarves) can compete with the bigfolk?

Sith_Happens
2014-05-14, 03:55 PM
Any thoughts on this? How the halfling and other small creatures (including dwarves) can compete with the bigfolk?

Um, most systems I know of account for everything you just described.:smallconfused:

Mr. Mask
2014-05-14, 05:36 PM
I've had the opposite experience.

Jay R
2014-05-14, 05:57 PM
The easy answer is to avoid a straight-up fight. Batman doesn't fight Superman by standing and trading punches; he avoids Superman's notice and uses kryptonite.

An unarmored peasant doesn't stand and trade blows with a knight in armor; he hides in the trees and shoots a bow.

Similarly, the halfling tries to keep hidden, uses superior movement skills, dodges, and fires a bow. Setting up a tripwire four feet high in advance is a good idea too.

In a well-balanced party, the two strong men with shields hold the giant back while the halfling shoots the bow and the wizard casts attack spells.

And according to the historical documents, a Ring of Invisibility is an excellent tool for an adventuring halfling.

Joe the Rat
2014-05-15, 04:49 PM
It is going to depend a LOT on the game system.

Most of them are going to give you a size differential bonus to not get hit. The written-in differentials for 3e, the AC bonus against Large creatures in older and old-school clones, bonus to your OV, penalty to his, that sort of thing. This is the natural tradeoff - better speed (maneuverability) and harder target, possibly with a more finesse/dextrous/missile focus. It certainly takes care of the whole "vitals are up there" issue.

Naturally you should expect size penalties on strength... well, at least on carrying capacity. But funny things happen: you can only carry 3/4 as much, but all your sized gear - like armor - only weighs half as much. And 3/4 load does not reduce your damage modifier. Not optimal, but there's nothing to stop you from maxing strength, plating up, grabbing that longsword in two hands (or Small two-handed sword, whatever gives you 1d8), and go play tough guy. If you can get strength and speed going, you can be a pint-sized lightning bruiser. That's what my current fighter does. Oh, and don't forget that you are better situated to immobilize opponents by taking out tendons, or putting a hearty swing into someones... business. Sometimes you just have to cut things down to size. Realistic? Maybe not, but if the rules support it, abuse the hell out of the square-cube law.

GGambrel
2014-05-15, 07:20 PM
And 3/4 load does not reduce your damage modifier. Not optimal, but there's nothing to stop you from maxing strength, plating up, grabbing that longsword in two hands (or Small two-handed sword, whatever gives you 1d8), and go play tough guy. If you can get strength and speed going, you can be a pint-sized lightning bruiser. That's what my current fighter does.

I once played a halfling called Shim the Destroyer who was kind of like that. A -2 to Strength isn't very much really, considering halflings weigh something like 30 lbs. Plus if you play a barbarian, suddenly you're stronger than most medium humanoids. D&D 3.5 does make it rather difficult for a halfling to have a good chance with bull-rushing, disarming, grappling, and whatnot though. Unfortunately the way attack bonuses and AC seems to work (in my experience) makes the marginal size bonus to AC from playing a small character inconsequential against large (and larger) foes since their strength is so much higher. Was it more than a +1 (or I guess a -1) bonus in older versions?

Tengu_temp
2014-05-15, 08:15 PM
I've had the opposite experience.

You must've had weird experience then. Tell us more about it.

The only game I played where halflings are underpowered is WFRP 1e - and I don't know if it's still a problem in later editions. In DND, no matter which edition, halflings are better at humans at dex-based classes, and can hold their own when it comes to strength-based ones: -2 strength penalty and having to use small weapons is not that much of a problem when your total strength modifier is +10 or so and the majority of your damage comes from Power Attack.

So yeah, I'd like to hear more about your experiences.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-15, 08:20 PM
I didn't say halflings were underpowered.

Tengu_temp
2014-05-15, 08:24 PM
What's this then?


So, the question is... how can you plausibly get around this problem, so you can still have halfling adventurers who aren't underpowered?


I have no idea what you're asking for. The closest thing I can think of is "realistically speaking, halflings and other small races should be really weak - how do I use game mechanics to balance it out?", and that makes no sense, because you can't have your cake and eat it. You either strive for realism or for game balance, one of those has to make way for the other at some point.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-15, 08:46 PM
I'm afraid I don't understand you. What I was asking, is if anyone had ideas for a plausible way for halflings to compete, despite their size.

Berenger
2014-05-16, 07:58 AM
I'm still not sure whether you want suggestions for mechanical bonuses, fluff justifications for mechanical bonuses, tactics that would work for halflings according to game rules or tactics that would work for halflings in the real world.

Jay R
2014-05-16, 08:40 AM
I'm afraid I don't understand you. What I was asking, is if anyone had ideas for a plausible way for halflings to compete, despite their size.

As I said before, avoid a straight up fight, use missile weapons and sneak attacks, and don't try to do the job of the big, strong guys with shields. Also go for magic items that increase stealth, not strength.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-16, 02:39 PM
Berenger: Those things are pretty closely connected. If halflings were like the hulk in the fluff, you'd expect them to have STR scores to reflect this. If the fluff is that halflings are simply child-sized humans, then you need tactics or game bonuses that make up for their lower HP, STR, reach, movement speed, etc..


Jay R: Yeah, that was quite a good suggestion. I didn't reply to it thinking it might stifle discussion.

HammeredWharf
2014-05-16, 05:15 PM
In D&D 3.5:


Simply, a smaller creature (ignoring other factors) has less mass (so it takes less force to destroy their smaller organs, etc.), uses smaller weapons (less damaging, less penetrative, less range), and is physically weaker

Halflings get -2 to Str and smaller weapons, which deal less damage.


less reach,

Nope, but D&D halflings aren't THAT small. Tiny creatures have a shorter reach mechanically.


a smaller stride,

A slower base movement speed.


can wear less armour, carries less,

Small creatures can carry less and their equipment weights less.


A small creature can have better control of their own weight, which can translate to being dexterous, agile, quick, a good climber and/or swimmer, etc. (that isn't to say they will have any of those qualities, but being small does make it easier).

+2 Dex, along with the bonus it gives to skills.


Its easier to hide, you're a smaller target, and it's easier to fit into small places (so if you dig a little tunnel system, less likely to collapse, and bigger creatures need to dig it up to get in).

+1 AC, being able to fit into small passages without squeezing, +4 size bonus to Hide, can ride medium-sized animals that fit well into most dungeons.


There are some economic advantages in a small size: needing less to eat (not in hobbits' case) and less material in general for your tools and items, needing less space, can transport more people for the same energy, etc..

The former two things don't really matter in D&D, but your equipment does weight less, as mentioned above.


If your intelligence is normal, then you perform just as well as a bigger creature in most academic pursuits.

Yep, halfling casters are fine.

So, D&D models these things quite well. Most systems I know do.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-16, 06:03 PM
-2 STR is quite minor, as Gambriel already pointed out. Halfling weapons are probably managed pretty reasonably, as far as DnD damage goes. I wonder if it should be different with bows and crossbows, but I'm uncertain on that.
Halflings don't have less HP despite being smaller. That reach difference is important, even minor reach differences among people makes a difference. Halflings get an attack and defence bonus by virtue of their size, but their shorter reach should actually grant them penalties in those areas (in hand-to-hand,it isn't hard to hit a smaller opponent). Halflings ought to get less AC from their armour since it is thinner.

Those are the typical inconsistencies I see in RPGs. Some could be justified with speed (though mechanically that should be a larger dex bonus rather than bonuses via size).

GGambrel
2014-05-16, 06:26 PM
-2 STR is quite minor, as Gambriel already pointed out... Halfling weapons are probably managed pretty reasonably, as far as DnD damage goes. I wonder if it should be different with bows and crossbows, but I'm uncertain on that.
Halflings don't have less HP despite being smaller. That reach difference is important, even minor reach differences among people makes a difference. Halflings get an attack and defence bonus by virtue of their size, but their shorter reach should actually grant them penalties in those areas (in hand-to-hand,it isn't hard to hit a smaller opponent). Halflings ought to get less AC from their armour since it is thinner.

Those are the typical inconsistencies I see in RPGs. Some could be justified with speed (though mechanically that should be a larger dex bonus rather than bonuses via size).

It's Gambrel, actually.

To reflect a halfling's (or gnome's) shorter reach, a house rule that (much?) shorter weapons/attacks provoke attacks of opportunity might reasonably address the issue. I see the AoO as the largest penalty for having a shorter reach than an opponent.

As far as thinner armor goes, I don't think it should grant less of an AC bonus since it still covers their body as well as a larger character's armor. Though if using armor as a form of damage reduction, then I think reducing its effectiveness makes sense.

Oh! And gnomes actually have MORE HP than humans in D&D 3.5, other things being equal, due to their +2 Con bonus.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-16, 06:33 PM
Sorry about that.


An AoO might work to simulate that, the sort of spear and sword contest going on. I see your point about AC. Armour makes more sense as DR to begin with.

And yes, gnomes have more HP than creatures almost twice their mass, on average. Having almost half the HP would be rough... but at the same time, in a deadly system, it mightn't make a lot of difference.

Cikomyr
2014-05-19, 08:29 PM
Spears

ranged weapons

Traps

Whips (for tripping in group)

Nets

Actually, nets are damn good. It can remove Dex AC, which gives sneak attacks for everyone.


Rule #1 --> Fight Unfair
Rule #2 --> Fight Dirty
Rule #3 --> Never, ever get into a fair fight

Knaight
2014-05-19, 08:54 PM
An AoO might work to simulate that, the sort of spear and sword contest going on. I see your point about AC. Armour makes more sense as DR to begin with.

Alternately, just have being bigger help with defense, at least in melee. I can guarantee that being smaller is really not that helpful to avoid things like sword strikes, at least not at most scales (we aren't talking about wasps here). The smaller pace, strength disadvantage, etc. all make striking easier. '

As for systems which actually do make being small hurt - look into Fudge. It has a mechanic called scale, which basically works out to getting +1 damage and +1 damage reduction (and +1 strength) per 1.5 times bigger one is. Scale 0 is game dependant, but for something involving humans you might use 80 kg. 120 kg is thus scale 1 (which is a pretty big person, enough to actually have that sort of advantage). 54 kg would be scale -1. The typical dwarf is probably actually Scale 0, as fantasy dwarves tend to be very broad. A halfling could easily be -2 or -3, which really hurts.

However, direct competition is still doable here. Sure, straightforward fighting is generally a bad idea (though tunnels that fit only you are a great leveler), but there are environmental niches where halflings could potentially do better (e.g. deep jungle) than others, or which nobody else even wants. At the societal level things could be fine. Then, for actual PCs, there's all the things that the size isn't relevant to. Having games not focused on combat pretty much solves it immediately.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-19, 11:05 PM
Cikomyr: Not getting into a fair fight is a good idea. Even with ranged weapons, your enemies can shoot harder and further, so you're still at a disadvantage.

Spears have been called advantageous to swords by a number of fencing masters, so using that to your advantage is also a good idea. Hopefully, despite the spear being shorter, you'll come out more or less equal, instead of at a disadvantage. Problem being, spears don't really match up with sneaking around in the bushes to ambush people.

Whips might work. Being lighter and weaker, you still might be able to use the leverage on their limb to pull them over. Nets might too, despite the net being smaller and the difficulty of throwing it, but I'm not sure on that.


Knaight: I agree with your points. Shorter reach, stride, weaker, that makes for poor defence and attack, which sounds like lower AC and BAB. Someone also mentioned that stubby limbs don't make for good balance, which is a problem in fencing and wrestling--depending on how stubby hobbit's limbs are.

I think it's pretty good that Fudge depicts differences in size within a race. Though, not offering attack or defence bonuses doesn't quite fit (even a hobbit would be quite deadly if damage was the only concern, until armour gets involved).

One benefit I hadn't mentioned, is that more halflings could stand abreast than humans. You don't really want to meet in formation in the field anyway, but it does mean you can be threatened by more hobbits at a time in ambushes or the like. As long as the hobbits had somewhere they didn't have to compete in a way they'd lose, they could probably do quite well (predators would be relatively more deadly, but still).



Anyone remember if hobbits are meant to be quick on their feet? It came up when I was discussing whether their limbs were stubby, but I couldn't remember if there were any direct mentions of this in the books.

Knaight
2014-05-20, 02:13 PM
Knaight: I agree with your points. Shorter reach, stride, weaker, that makes for poor defence and attack, which sounds like lower AC and BAB. Someone also mentioned that stubby limbs don't make for good balance, which is a problem in fencing and wrestling--depending on how stubby hobbit's limbs are.

I think it's pretty good that Fudge depicts differences in size within a race. Though, not offering attack or defence bonuses doesn't quite fit (even a hobbit would be quite deadly if damage was the only concern, until armour gets involved).

Attack and defense isn't directly effected as much, though there are changes in minimum thresholds to hit - which tend not to matter much with the particularly capable. As for even a hobbit being quite deadly, the scale difference (probably -2) is going to be superseded by weaponry. If they're armed, they're going to be quite dangerous, though with armor involved it's not going to be as big a deal.

Delwugor
2014-05-20, 03:43 PM
As I said before, avoid a straight up fight, use missile weapons and sneak attacks, and don't try to do the job of the big, strong guys with shields. Also go for magic items that increase stealth, not strength.
Jay R offers great advice not to just this situation but it can be applied generally to D&D. It's a simple tactic that works well despite any numbers or mechanical difference.
Don't attack an opponents strengths! Instead avoid their strengths and attack their weakness with your character's strengths.

There are fun and creative ways of implementing that basic tactic and at times understanding and using the numbers can help.

erikun
2014-05-20, 04:50 PM
Simply, a smaller creature (ignoring other factors) has less mass (so it takes less force to destroy their smaller organs, etc.)
Not so much. Calcuim is as durable regardless of how much it is. A fully formed adult will have roughly the same durability in their skeleton at three feet tall as they would at six feet tall, all other factors being equal.


can wear less armour
Actually, much like the skeleton, metal armor will likey be as durable at smaller sizes as it would at larger sizes. If anything, it could actually be greater, as it is easier to locate and take advantage of a fault in a larger object than a smaller one.

Note that the character's strength and endurance to carry such armor would probably be a greater limiting factor.


uses smaller weapons (less damaging, less penetrative, less range)
A sharp knife is about as damaging to someone regardless of how large it is. The mass/momentum issue is going to be the biggest problem for a small character dealing damage.



Any thoughts on this? How the halfling and other small creatures (including dwarves) can compete with the bigfolk?
Well, ironically enough, D&D tends to work just fine for this. Most small creatures are fair compared to larger creatures, and in fact are frequently better.

Another option is to not have small creatures compete with bigfolk and have size a very relevant thing. That is, the giant using a tree trunk as a club is a very dangerous thing, not just a slightly larger orc. Make larger opponent a very difficult challenge and approach it appropriately in the game.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-20, 05:37 PM
Knaight: Sounds interesting with the thresholds, even if not particularly severe.


Erikun: Having durable bones is nice, but it doesn't change the situation. If their bones were weak, then you could stick a dagger in their skull, instead of that being awkward to do. A good skeleton probably will prevent unarmed attacks being too deadly, though of course you can still mop the floor with the little guys. With other weapons, on a decent swing they won't even notice the bones, and have an easier time of disabling organs which are smaller.

Halflings can only carry so much weight. Armour of the same thickness as humans wear would likely be too heavy, and in the case of some armours would be too restrictive to movement. It's true that faults in their armour would be harder to find. If you had halflings as stronger for their size, then stuff like plate harness could be closer to normal thickness. There'd still be the weakness of braining them on the helmet, making the difficulty of finding other weaknesses a bit moot.

I agree on the point of knives, even a small razor of boxcutter is perfectly capable of disabling people. Still, it needed pointing out. In war in particular, weapon size counts. When a thousand of your arrows strike true, you want as many of those hits to be incapacitating as possible. If you can't shoot your arrows as far as the enemy, that can put you at quite a disadvantage. Of course, you can subvert that by ambushing them in forests, where range is almost irrelevant.
And on the point of mass/momentum, that's quite a problem for their ability to penetrate armour. They can more easily aim at weak points, so that might balance it out (though people who have to fight a halfling war will take this into account).

DnD doesn't fully simulate the challenges a small creature would face (missing out on important points).

Having them not compete does sound like the more interesting alternative, and the more plausible. If halflings can be cunning in ambush, they can overcome many of their weaknesses. Similarly to how humans can overcome ogres and the like.

QuidEst
2014-05-20, 08:16 PM
If D&D/Pathfinder's size modifier to attack rolls is an accurate reflection, then they should take advantage of the fact that they can hit more easily. Use things like poisoned darts or shortswords, magical touch attacks, nets, and so on. Failing that, they should read up on Tucker's Kobolds. Those things are dealing with a much more significant strength penalty.

The Grue
2014-05-21, 12:13 AM
Having durable bones is nice, but it doesn't change the situation. If their bones were weak, then you could stick a dagger in their skull

Skulls are made of bone.


With other weapons, on a decent swing they won't even notice the bones, and have an easier time of disabling organs which are smaller.

Vital organs are contained within the ribcage. Which is made of bone.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-21, 02:06 AM
Huh?

Yeah, ribcages are in the body around organs. And the world record for human prisoners cut in half in a single swing is eight. Even with a knife, a solid stab can go through ribs and skulls, it's just hard enough that it's better to eviscerate an opponent. When you take a sword or an axe, bones are only going to make a difference with glancing blows.


Quid: Well, the size modifier isn't really an accurate depiction. If halflings were meant to be like quicklings, some kind of defence and attack bonuses would add up, where their speed makes up for their shorter stride and reach.

As you say, Tucker's kobolds are a great example for hobbits. It doesn't matter if you're physically weaker if you can use tactics to subvert that weakness. Stuff like poisons is a good idea, since size doesn't make a difference. Magical touch attacks might work, if nicking the opponent's wrist was an option--that'd reduce the reach disadvantage, going for the wrist.

The Grue
2014-05-21, 04:56 AM
Oh, well, if we're using world records as our baseline then I guess humans ought to be able to jump thirty feet automatically.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-21, 06:37 AM
I recommend hunting, and going out and butchering some meat. A bit more legal than taking an axe to someone. Though, if you want, go and look up some executions on youtube. Better than seeing them first hand.

Cikomyr
2014-05-21, 10:38 AM
Although, while it's provoking the death of Catgirls, the square-cube law states that larger creatures MUST have much greater bone and muscle density to exist.

Therefore, a giant's ribcage would have to be much, much more solid than a human's.

erikun
2014-05-21, 11:36 AM
Erikun: Having durable bones is nice, but it doesn't change the situation. If their bones were weak, then you could stick a dagger in their skull, instead of that being awkward to do. A good skeleton probably will prevent unarmed attacks being too deadly, though of course you can still mop the floor with the little guys. With other weapons, on a decent swing they won't even notice the bones, and have an easier time of disabling organs which are smaller.
While the halfling = 10 year old human might be a decent comparison for size/weight purposes, it isn't a fair comparison for everything. Specifically, a 10 year old human is still a growing child. Their skeleton has not fully solidified yet, and so they are more malleable and more prone to breaking (and healing). An adult halfling is going to have the skeleton of an adult, meaning solid bone comparable to an adult human.

While size is still going to be a factor working against the halfling - blunt trauma to the ribcage will cause more damage to the halfling than it would to a human - the majority of injury that a human skeleton could protect against will also be prevented by a halfling skeleton. A halfling is no more vulnerable to a knife through the skull than a human is.


Halflings can only carry so much weight. Armour of the same thickness as humans wear would likely be too heavy, and in the case of some armours would be too restrictive to movement. It's true that faults in their armour would be harder to find. If you had halflings as stronger for their size, then stuff like plate harness could be closer to normal thickness. There'd still be the weakness of braining them on the helmet, making the difficulty of finding other weaknesses a bit moot.
While the halflings are weaker and can carry less weight, they generally don't need to. They may be limited to only carrying half as much as a human, but a halfling armor only needs to cover half the area. Halfling armor does not need to be thinner than human armor. In fact, halfling-halfling fights would probably favor armor even more than human-human fights, precisely because halflings would find it that much harder to generate the force behind weapons to penetrate the similar armors.

You could argue that halflings are unlikely to create thicker armor within their own society because of that, but there is no reason why a halfling could not simply create and wear armor as thick as a human's when fighting humans.



Still, it needed pointing out. In war in particular, weapon size counts. When a thousand of your arrows strike true, you want as many of those hits to be incapacitating as possible. If you can't shoot your arrows as far as the enemy, that can put you at quite a disadvantage. Of course, you can subvert that by ambushing them in forests, where range is almost irrelevant.
And on the point of mass/momentum, that's quite a problem for their ability to penetrate armour. They can more easily aim at weak points, so that might balance it out (though people who have to fight a halfling war will take this into account).

DnD doesn't fully simulate the challenges a small creature would face (missing out on important points).

Having them not compete does sound like the more interesting alternative, and the more plausible. If halflings can be cunning in ambush, they can overcome many of their weaknesses. Similarly to how humans can overcome ogres and the like.
Yep, mass and range count for a lot. It is unlikely that you would ever find a halfling army marching against a human army, simply because of that. Human reach would destroy halfling troops before they even had a chance to retaliate, either through archery, calvary, or just plain arm lengths.

Not competing is the most obvious (and most realistic) option. The humans would live on the plains, where their horses provide mobility and their spears provide dominance. Halflings live elsewhere, where the horses cannot charge and the range of arrows/spears are not as dominating. Note that if some of those options are not available - if horses do not exist, or if crossbows are the ranged weapon of choice - then it could be a completely different situation. Perhaps halflings live on the plains, thanks to riding dogs that humans can't use as mounts, while humans live in the forests where they can get close up and put their superior spears to use?

If we are talking about giant-human relations, then it depends a lot on what the giants have available. If we're talking human calvary and archery while giants have only infantry, then again we are seeing humans dominating areas where they can, such as plains. If the giants have some form of archery available (and the means to use it - giant arrows require a lot of material!) then we are more likely to see humans huddled down in forts to avoid being bombarded with the attacks of giants.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-21, 05:20 PM
I don't quite understand what you're arguing. Are you saying their skeletons would be denser to make up for the lack of mass? Or that their skeletons wouldn't be fragile?

If halfling's strength relative to their mass is greater on the strength side, they could manage thicker armour than normal, though that requires more calories (covered by their second breakfasts). Having less to cover doesn't work out quite the way you're thinking, though, unless you figure them to be strong for their mass. You can't armour mice or cats with the same thickness of armour as a human can wear, and they're quire strong for their size.

Being able to get ahead in the armour side of arms versus armour, people love that.

Crossbow range also scales with size, though there may still be benefits with crossbows for halflings--with the exception they're a more industrious weapon than bows and slings. Human size will always be a problem in open combat, regardless of horses. Halflings being ahead of the technology curve could help, though that wouldn't be hobbit-like.
Children can ride on big dogs for a while, but even that is hard on them. They couldn't really take an armoured war hobbit.

If the giants could organize an army... good luck fighting that. Forts would be a good idea, since their size probably isn't so effective in a siege.


Cikomyr: Yeah, giants aren't the kind of thing you can box to death. Extra bone and muscle may add difficulty to the cut, but as long as the bone isn't too strong a material to make up for the giant's mass, you could still cut deep and sure. Not to say the giant will be keen on that idea, and getting close has the same problems halflings do.

erikun
2014-05-21, 08:36 PM
I am saying that, when comparing halfling skeletons to human skeletons, we should generally consider the two to be equal. There are some cases where the halfling skeleton is at a disadvantage (being hit by a mace, being crushed by a weight) but in general, most things that a human skeleton would protect against, a halfling skeleton would protect against as well.

A halfling's strength is going to be less than a human's strength, but a halfling's armor is going to weigh less than a human's armor, even with the same thickness. It is reasonable to assume that, with proper interaction between the two groups, that a halfling would have armor of the same quality and defensive properities as a human.

Comparing halflings to mice is not a fair comparison; you cannot armor a mouse as you would a human, but an average mouse is 20 times smaller than your average human. An average halfling is only half the size.


The Arms vs Armor debate for halflings is probably rather interesting. While standard swords and blunt maces are probably less effective when used by halflings, crossbows would likely be more effective since the power of a crossbow has less to do with the strength of the user. Also, unless halflings have ponies or riding dogs, archery would have a much greater effect against an army of halflings than it would against a similar army of humans. However, that's more getting into halfling warfare and how a halfling society might develop, rather than the question at hand.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-21, 09:10 PM
The halfling skeleton is at a disadvantage in those areas because it is smaller/thinner. The only areas it has an advantage is that it has less weight to bear, so hobbits would be more resilient to falls.

The comparison between hobbits and mice and cats is perfectly adequate because all three share the relevant trait, that they are smaller. Something like a monkey, you can give it thicker armour because of how strong they are relative to their mass. That might work for halflings.


While less effective, swords and blades are pretty deadly regardless of strength. Even with less strength, a well made mace is going to deliver quite a bit of force. Sticks, punching, throwing rocks, these things suffer from a lack of strength most. And yeah, crossbows have stuff like cranks to allow more efficient transfer of strength into energy, so halflings will get more out of it. In case there's a misunderstanding, their crossbows won't be equal to humans', still. The tactical situation is a bit more complex than that. Archery can be pretty effective against riders as well, and archers can be countered by infantry or other archers. So it depends on more specific details.

Halfling society is liable to be coexistent with a human society. They could strike it out on their own under certain circumstances, and they can achieve military victory through the right tactics.