Goodman Games

I'm curious as to why halflings are masters of 2-handed fighting. Is Belkar from Order of the Stick the new halfling archetype? Is the dual-wielding halfling from TSR's Monster Cards more influential than I suspect? What's the going on here?

What would you do to make Halflings interesting instead?

jmucchiello wrote:What would you do to make Halflings interesting instead?

Hairy Feet of Arms. There you go.

jmucchiello wrote:What would you do to make Halflings interesting instead?

I'd prefer if they were quick, nimble and hard to kill. A few thoughts (not necessarily all ideas that should be used together):

1. Quick and Nimble: They get bonus action dice at lower levels, a d10 at level 1 and 2, a d12 at level 3 and 4, and d14 at level 5. The Halfling may use their action dice in any order.

2. Resilient: The first time they are knocked to zero hit points in combat they may make a DC 15 Luck roll each round for a number of rounds equal to their level. If they succeed they are awake with 1 hit point, otherwise unharmed.

3. Clever: A halfling is very good at surprising opponents with feints and bluffs, whether emotive, verbal or in combat. Make an action check and add the halfling's level. Their opponent must roll a saving throw with this result as the DC, use Reflex for combat or Will for other bluffs. In combat the halfling gains either a +2 to their next attack, or impose a -4 on the opponent's next attack. In other situations the opponent takes the halfling's bluff as true.

4. Fortunate Give an extra +1 bonus to all saving throws.

These are just a few initial thoughts, but all ones that I think relate to what I believe was the original inspiration of Halfings better.

jrients wrote:I'm curious as to why halflings are masters of 2-handed fighting. Is Belkar from Order of the Stick the new halfling archetype? Is the dual-wielding halfling from TSR's Monster Cards more influential than I suspect? What's the going on here?

It's from that passage in The Hobbit where Bilbo goes buckwild with twin nunchuks, then Gandalf surveys the goblin corpses and solemnly intones 'Fatality!'

geordie racer wrote:

jrients wrote:I'm curious as to why halflings are masters of 2-handed fighting. Is Belkar from Order of the Stick the new halfling archetype? Is the dual-wielding halfling from TSR's Monster Cards more influential than I suspect? What's the going on here?

It's from that passage in The Hobbit where Bilbo goes buckwild with twin nunchuks, then Gandalf surveys the goblin corpses and solemnly intones 'Fatality!'

In Tolkien's defense, he eventually re-wrote that scene. It didn't make it into the book version, although rumor has it that it might still make it into the cinema version.

meinvt wrote: 4. Fortunate Give an extra +1 bonus to all saving throws.

Halflings are already fortunate they can use their Luck to aid allies.

jmucchiello wrote:What would you do to make Halflings interesting instead?

Is there a need for Halflings in DCC? I know they made their way into D&D because of the players love of Tolkien, but that seems a poor reason to include them in the base game. If they're going to be there, they should at least reflect the literary source, and if that makes them "less interesting/powerful" than other classes, then so be it. You shoul play something like a Halfling because you find the idea interesting, not because you want to be a dual-weapon agent of death, and Halflings are best at that.

talmor wrote:

jmucchiello wrote:What would you do to make Halflings interesting instead?

Is there a need for Halflings in DCC? I know they made their way into D&D because of the players love of Tolkien, but that seems a poor reason to include them in the base game. If they're going to be there, they should at least reflect the literary source, and if that makes them "less interesting/powerful" than other classes, then so be it. You shoul play something like a Halfling because you find the idea interesting, not because you want to be a dual-weapon agent of death, and Halflings are best at that.

I find myself halfaway between thesw two positions...
I think that as Dwarves are warriors' spin-offs, and elves are weird wizards, halfling should just be different thieves.
And i would like them to be fat-belly hobbits, not Forgotten Realms halflings!!
So ok with the Good luck charm ability, just give them d7 HP per level (we have d7, use them!) to represent the fat-belly, and give them full Thieves abilities, maybe at half the bonus (but double bonus on sneaking).

I don't like them to have 2-weapon fighting (i don't like it in general, even less applied to halflings) but if we reinforce the "thief" flavour, they are on-par with other classes (for as much as "on par" classes can be in DCC) and keep the Tolkien's fan happy.

I don't like 2-weapon fighting in general. No one really does it. If they do, they use the off-hand for parrying. Even in Krull, Prince-whats-his-face was always parrying with one-hand and attacking with the other. I think it's a movie thing, and this game isn't supposed to emulate movies, it's supposed to emulate Sword & Sorcery, right?

reverenddak wrote:I don't like 2-weapon fighting in general. No one really does it. If they do, they use the off-hand for parrying. Even in Krull, Prince-whats-his-face was always parrying with one-hand and attacking with the other. I think it's a movie thing, and this game isn't supposed to emulate movies, it's supposed to emulate Sword & Sorcery, right?

I agree but i also like the idea that "somebody" might want to use two small daggers. Not everybody: some enemy assassin, some PC which fits ("hey i'm a pirate!" sort of thing).
What's important is to clearly separate which different advantages you get from each style:
One handed, sword & board, two handed, 2-weapons.

One handed: normal damage die.
Two handed: roll damage die twice, keep highest result. *
Sword&Board: higher AC from shield. (dwarves keep their extra rule)
2-weapons: choose, (A-offensive) roll both dice from the weapons** and keep highest result; or (B-defensive) higher AC, only against 1 opponent (like 3E dodge feat)

This means that using a longsword with two hands lets you roll 2d8 instead of 1d8, keeping the best result.

*Maybe if you want to use single handedly a weapon intended for the use with 2 hands, you roll an Action die 1 step smaller. This means more penalties that advantages (you only get the bigger damage die, 1d10 for greatsword, but you roll it only once)

** I think that the Agility score should count to determine which 1-handed weapons you are allowed to use, like :
AGI 13, only 1d4 damage weapons in both hands;
AGI 14, can use a 1d6 damage weapon in one hand and a 1d4 damage weapon on the offhand;
AGI 15, can use 1d6 weapons in both hands;
AGI 16, can use a 1d8 and a 1d6 weapons;
AGI 17, can use 1d8 weapons in both hands.
AGI 18, can use 1d8 weapons in both hands, always considered both offensive and defensive.

this way the random thief can use 2 daggers, the cool 18 DEX elf (statistically 1 in 2160 PCs if i'm not wrong..) will fight with two longswords like a dervish.

what do you think?

abk108 wrote:

reverenddak wrote:I don't like 2-weapon fighting in general. No one really does it. If they do, they use the off-hand for parrying. Even in Krull, Prince-whats-his-face was always parrying with one-hand and attacking with the other. I think it's a movie thing, and this game isn't supposed to emulate movies, it's supposed to emulate Sword & Sorcery, right?

I agree but i also like the idea that "somebody" might want to use two small daggers. Not everybody: some enemy assassin, some PC which fits ("hey i'm a pirate!" sort of thing).
What's important is to clearly separate which different advantages you get from each style:
One handed, sword & board, two handed, 2-weapons.

One handed: normal damage die.
Two handed: roll damage die twice, keep highest result. *
Sword&Board: higher AC from shield. (dwarves keep their extra rule)
2-weapons: choose, (A-offensive) roll both dice from the weapons** and keep highest result; or (B-defensive) higher AC, only against 1 opponent (like 3E dodge feat)

This means that using a longsword with two hands lets you roll 2d8 instead of 1d8, keeping the best result.

*Maybe if you want to use single handedly a weapon intended for the use with 2 hands, you roll an Action die 1 step smaller. This means more penalties that advantages (you only get the bigger damage die, 1d10 for greatsword, but you roll it only once)

** I think that the Agility score should count to determine which 1-handed weapons you are allowed to use, like :
AGI 13, only 1d4 damage weapons in both hands;
AGI 14, can use a 1d6 damage weapon in one hand and a 1d4 damage weapon on the offhand;
AGI 15, can use 1d6 weapons in both hands;
AGI 16, can use a 1d8 and a 1d6 weapons;
AGI 17, can use 1d8 weapons in both hands.
AGI 18, can use 1d8 weapons in both hands, always considered both offensive and defensive.

this way the random thief can use 2 daggers, the cool 18 DEX elf (statistically 1 in 2160 PCs if i'm not wrong..) will fight with two longswords like a dervish.

what do you think?

I like where you're going with that. I think at higher levels (not just Agility) you should be able to use that extra Action Die as a 2nd attack, and then only. So you "can" have some fantastic Drizzt kind of guy killing two enemies at once. Maybe the off-hand can be used defensively in that it absorbs damage, either a flat rate or variable depending on the weapon. For example, you can use a dagger to absorb (or eliminate) up to 1d4+str+level in damage. Something like that. That makes way more sense. You can choose which weapon you hit with, and which weapon absorbs damage.

Let the little buggers have the kick butt two weapon thing. Gives em something to swagger about at last!

I like where you're going with that. I think at higher levels (not just Agility) you should be able to use that extra Action Die as a 2nd attack, and then only.

Hm, you're right.. i don't want a guy, even with 18 AGI, to be able to double-wield scimitars and kill 10 orcs in a row, at 1st level! Maybe... if we put level into the equation, it could be something like :
AGI 13, and at least level 1*, only 1d4 damage weapons in both hands;
AGI 14, and at least level 2, can use a 1d6 damage weapon in one hand and a 1d4 damage weapon on the offhand;
AGI 15, and at least level 3, can use 1d6 weapons in both hands ;
AGI 16, and at least level 4, can use a 1d8 and a 1d6 weapons;
AGI 17, and at least level 5, can use 1d8 weapons in both hands.
AGI 18, and at least level 6, can use 1d8 weapons in both hands, always considered both offensive and defensive.
AGI 18, and level 7+, (OPTION C - double) can get 2 separate attack rolls using d20, one with each weapon, as if they were both 1 handed (thus OPTION A- offensive no longer applies); he's still considered defensive. A PC chooses whether to use this option C or option A at the beginning of each round.

* so no 2-weapons fighting 0-level PCs!

So you "can" have some fantastic Drizzt kind of guy killing two enemies at once. Maybe the off-hand can be used defensively in that it absorbs damage, either a flat rate or variable depending on the weapon. For example, you can use a dagger to absorb (or eliminate) up to 1d4+str+level in damage. Something like that. That makes way more sense. You can choose which weapon you hit with, and which weapon absorbs damage.

I think 1d4+STR+Level absorbs WAY TOO MUCH dmg... i mean, that's 5-9 damage reduction at level 5 i think I gave the idea that you use one hand to parry (always) in both the offensive and defensive options (A&B) for 2-weapons fighting: offensive, only 1 weapon deals damage, the one that rolls higher, the other is automatically considered "parrying" more than "attacking", even if you're aggressive*; defensive, you decide that one of your weapons won't make any attack, so you gain a +1 AC bonus and attack as if with 1 weapon and 1 shield.

* note that this makes sense because often if you're wielding a short sword and a dagger, you often deal more damage with the 1d6 roll, and this represent attacking with the sword and parrying with the dagger, but sometimes you swap and surprise the target attacking with the dagger and parrying with the sword (this is if 1d4 scores higher than 1d6)

If we are going to stay "true" to the origins, then it seems the bonuses should go towards throwing weapons like slings (or apples )

abk108 wrote: i think I gave the idea that you use one hand to parry (always) in both the offensive and defensive options (A&B) for 2-weapons fighting: offensive, only 1 weapon deals damage, the one that rolls higher, the other is automatically considered "parrying" more than "attacking", even if you're aggressive*; defensive, you decide that one of your weapons won't make any attack, so you gain a +1 AC bonus and attack as if with 1 weapon and 1 shield.

* note that this makes sense because often if you're wielding a short sword and a dagger, you often deal more damage with the 1d6 roll, and this represent attacking with the sword and parrying with the dagger, but sometimes you swap and surprise the target attacking with the dagger and parrying with the sword (this is if 1d4 scores higher than 1d6)

I know the one-attack-roll-damage-for-both-weapons-take-highest has been suggested several times. It does sound more "realistic", and is starting to appeal to me. I'd love to get away from the idea that more weapons=more attack rolls. Has any one playtested it? Biggest problem I think will be players expectations that two weapons should equal two attacks, simply because long time players are used to it being that way.

Although the whole thing as is doesn't bother me as a special Halfling racial ability.

nanstreet wrote:

abk108 wrote: i think I gave the idea that you use one hand to parry (always) in both the offensive and defensive options (A&B) for 2-weapons fighting: offensive, only 1 weapon deals damage, the one that rolls higher, the other is automatically considered "parrying" more than "attacking", even if you're aggressive*; defensive, you decide that one of your weapons won't make any attack, so you gain a +1 AC bonus and attack as if with 1 weapon and 1 shield.

* note that this makes sense because often if you're wielding a short sword and a dagger, you often deal more damage with the 1d6 roll, and this represent attacking with the sword and parrying with the dagger, but sometimes you swap and surprise the target attacking with the dagger and parrying with the sword (this is if 1d4 scores higher than 1d6)

I know the one-attack-roll-damage-for-both-weapons-take-highest has been suggested several times. It does sound more "realistic", and is starting to appeal to me. I'd love to get away from the idea that more weapons=more attack rolls. Has any one playtested it? Biggest problem I think will be players expectations that two weapons should equal two attacks, simply because long time players are used to it being that way.

Although the whole thing as is doesn't bother me as a special Halfling racial ability.

For playtesting, i'm starting playtest today: we have a lvl 1 rogue, which sould have 13 DEX i think. It is highly probable that she'll end up dual wielding daggers, so i'll let you know how it plays out. Stay tuned.

I think that seasoned players will appreciate the fact that this way combat is more realistic, more quick, and more predictable (you know you'll usually deal at least 2-3 damage if you hit, because the chances of rolling double 1 on 2d4 is 1/4 than it would be if rolling only 1d4).

I normally never use the two weapons give two attacks rules. Whatever bonus a shield gives for AC I give the same bonus but for attack. With that said I do not seem to mind the two attack thing in DCC because of the different dice. No matter that the end result might be the same ...it doesn't bother me here.

Keep the little Hobbits as duel wielding munchkins of death. It's the first rpg I have ever heard of that made being a short hairfooted potbellied little freak a cool and deadly thing!

Also if I ever see a Drow in any adventure or game in DCC he better dang well be wielding a 12 foot tall greatsword that holds a major demon and hungers for souls or I am going to throw one heck of a fit!

Not to tangent but I like this idea so much....

abk108 wrote:I think that as Dwarves are warriors' spin-offs, and elves are weird wizards, halfling should just be different thieves.

And half-orc clerics?

abk108 wrote:

So you "can" have some fantastic Drizzt kind of guy killing two enemies at once. Maybe the off-hand can be used defensively in that it absorbs damage, either a flat rate or variable depending on the weapon. For example, you can use a dagger to absorb (or eliminate) up to 1d4+str+level in damage. Something like that. That makes way more sense. You can choose which weapon you hit with, and which weapon absorbs damage.

I think 1d4+STR+Level absorbs WAY TOO MUCH dmg... i mean, that's 5-9 damage reduction at level 5)

I'll admit that dealing with Damage Reduction is messy and probably not worth it, but reducing damage by 9 is negligible for a 5th level Warrior (I think.) and the other option of "Parrying" with a 2nd weapon can be an AC modifier (which is easier.)

Since characters don't get a 2nd Action die until 5-level (if at all), two-weapon fighting is mostly built-in for higher-ish level characters. At lower levels the 2nd weapon should be at the least purely aesthetic and at the most a defensive device (no greater than a shield.) That's my opinion (I'm not a fan of 2WF in general.)

The rules as written are so limited, that I don't really see any characters with less than 18 Agility using it at all. It might as well be scrapped, or simplified.

So how do we get guys like Grey Mouser? High levels with high agility.

jmucchiello wrote:Not to tangent but I like this idea so much....

abk108 wrote:I think that as Dwarves are warriors' spin-offs, and elves are weird wizards, halfling should just be different thieves.

And half-orc clerics?

+d16!! Shaman-like clerics!!

I'll admit that dealing with Damage Reduction is messy and probably not worth it, but reducing damage by 9 is negligible for a 5th level Warrior (I think.) and the other option of "Parrying" with a 2nd weapon can be an AC modifier (which is easier.)

I think that damage in DCC is less than what we're used in 3E, and even there Damage Reduction is usually not more than 1/-, 2/- if it has no weaknesses which can be easily exploited (like 10/silver or good, 5/magic and so on)
I expect my 5th level dwarf (i should say, "the dwarf that is in the game i'm running, which has only 9 STR, if he makes it to lvl 5"..) to deal 1d8(longsword)+1d7 damage... this is average 8.5, maximum 15 damage per attack. If you pit him against a double wielding guy with dmg reduction 8, he's as good as a dead dwarf already

So how do we get guys like Grey Mouser? High levels with high agility.

Have you checked the revised table i posted above? 2 attacks at level 7+ and 18 AGI...

FOR THOSE WHO'D LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT PLAYTESTING :

I introduced my houserule for 2-weapon fighting (see above). Easily understood by the thief player, even if she's not really used to rpgs so tend to be confused by rules. That was important to me. She had a lvl 1, 14 AGI thief, so he used 2 daggers. She went offensive, backstabbing a drunkard for 3 damage. Crit resulted in a kidney hit, added another 3d3, 7 damage on top of the 3. No STR modifier, so 10 total.
She looks forward for next level, to be able to use a 1d6 weapon like a shortsword with a dagger.
I haven't yet introduced her the "defensive" option: i tend to give out only so many rules at once, especially to inexperienced players. I'll tell her about that next time.

NOTE: seems that 1 attack keep-highest is easier. The dwarf player, much more expert, FORGOT the shield bash, while the thief kept rolling everything right.

I'm just excited that I finally get to put these minis to use!