Seems to me that in D&D halfling are quite that, in fact: short people. But with a rather interesting and unusual personality. I don't know where you've been playing any kind of small character (wow gnomes, maybe?) but your vision that Halflings are supposed to be silly and ridiculous just don't fit what has been the idea for them in D&D up to this day. You can play a silly and ridiculous halfling if you want, but you can do as much with humans, dwarfs or any race. That has nothing to do with a "the race" being like that. Even in Dragonlance where stories involving kenders (their halflings) tend to be a bit more comical, the books go great lengths to explain why they behave like they do, how the lack of fear and sense of property make them different in personality, and that they are by no means just a "comic relief" to the story. So, I'm sorry, mate. You're just wrong there. At least in so far as D&D's halflings are concerned.
I'm sorry, but it just sounds to me like you're in denial, like the people who think that CoDzilla were balanced back in 3E.
I agree that Halflings are a silly race, but their physical nature shouldn't preclude them from being intimidating. I mean, how could I ever use a Halfling as a badguy with that kind of face?
I don't see any difficulty in what you're asking. Why couldn't you make an intimidating villain out of this Halfling? Sounds like the only thing in your way is you.
Why in the world should Halflings be silly or ridiculous?
I don't know. Why should Dwarves be stout and have beards? Why should Elves be slim and have pointy ears? Why should Minotaurs be big and have a bull's head? Why should Drow have black skin and white hair?
I'm sorry, but it just sounds to me like you're in denial, like the people who think that CoDzilla were balanced back in 3E.I don't see any difficulty in what you're asking. Why couldn't you make an intimidating villain out of this Halfling? Sounds l
One thing to consider however is that this could just be one artist's take on these races. I think the time to freak out (either positively or negatively) would be when more artists' work is seen.
No, now would be the time. Why let these pictures stick around and let other artists think that's what we and/or D&D WANTS them to look like. They should know know that people aren't real happy with this take and maybe it'll get them to have their take go another way.
I think you may have missed my point. Different artists have different styles; perhaps this is just one artist's style towards these creatures, and other artists will express them differently.
No, now would be the time. Why let these pictures stick around and let other artists think that's what we and/or D&D WANTS them to look like. They should know know that people aren't real happy with this take and maybe it'll get them to have their ta
I also solidly fall in the hate the halflings camp. What is wrong with the art these last two editions? Who ithe asleep at the wheel art director I need to complain to?
I also solidly fall in the hate the halflings camp. What is wrong with the art these last two editions? Who ithe asleep at the wheel art director I need to complain to?
Whether they go with this art or not, they shouldn't regurgitate the "tiny humans" aesthetic of 3e/4e. If they are going to be completely indistiguishable from short human beings, without any supernatural flair or mythological lineage, they don't deserve to be separate race at all.
Whether they go with this art or not, they shouldn't regurgitate the "tiny humans" aesthetic of 3e/4e. If they are going to be completely indistiguishable from short human beings, without any supernatural flair or mythological lineage, they don't des
How well does the halfling fulfill the vision of the halfling ethos outlined above?
I think the feel of the halfling is spot on.
1471
65.2%
I think that the halfling misses when it comes to the idea of a culture that holds home and community in high regard.
213
9.4%
I feel the halfling is lacking a childlike innocence.
109
4.8%
I'm really missing the idea of nature in the world of the halfling.
152
6.7%
I have additional comments, and I'll write them below.
310
13.7%
Total
2255
100.0%
The poll most certainly did not ask people to vote whether they liked it or not. The "additional comments" generally meant "I don't like the halfling's enormous head and tiny feet."
Personally, I'm okay with it. It gives them a whimsical Alice in Wonderlandish Red Queen style feel. My wife hates it, because it gives them an absurd Alice in Wonderlandish Red Queen style feel.
As someone who has worked in data collection from time to time, can I say that those polls are terribad for geting genuine feedback? They are the sort of "polls" that are skewed to illicit enthusiasm and support, or to seek confirmation.
Don't get me wrong, I like 98% of the artistic stuff so far, just not the monsters inc style hafling (soooo much scarier than Tully), and I think that a company has the right to stir up a bit of pre-release enthusiasm, but those polls are not the way to get constructive feedback.
As someone who has worked in data collection from time to time, can I say that those polls are terribad for geting genuine feedback? They are the sort of "polls" that are skewed to illicit enthusiasm and support, or to seek confirmation.Don't get me
Love the new halfling, love the new gnome, hate the more popular PF style of fantasy art. When considering just how bad I thought the new art was going to be, well, I'm not even going to complain about those axes.
Love the new halfling, love the new gnome, hate the more popular PF style of fantasy art. When considering just how bad I thought the new art was going to be, well, I'm not even going to complain about those axes.
Love the new halfling, love the new gnome, hate the more popular PF style of fantasy art. When considering just how bad I thought the new art was going to be, well, I'm not even going to complain about those axes.
yes, it's a step up from the PF art, but that isn't saying much.
yes, it's a step up from the PF art, but that isn't saying much.
is disney-esque the new anime for art hate? I liked all the art, I dont get all the hate.
all cartoon art is hated.
I dont get the term cartoon art, if you mean charatures or styalized then yeah! lets have something thats not going for the realism.
all cartoon art is hated. [/quote]I dont get the term cartoon art, if you mean charatures or styalized then yeah! lets have something thats not going for the realism.
Don't get me wrong, I like 98% of the artistic stuff so far, just not the monsters inc style hafling (soooo much scarier than Tully),
I think they dipped in to that uncanny valley and came out with something too dang distorted and erie.
Oh, do a I certainly see this! By all means, I'm not asking for humans suffering dwarfism (like the 3e and 4e style), but something about this needs a change. I'm not quite sure what it is, besides a few things. (Resculpt that head for one and puff up those feet a bit!)
I think they dipped in to that uncanny valley and came out with something too dang distorted and erie.[/quote]Oh, do a I certainly see this! By all means, I'm not asking for humans suffering dwarfism (like the 3e and 4e style), but something about t
Cartoon art is fine when it is supposed to be a cartoon. PF art tends to be very good with the exception of the actual figures in their cre products. AP art tends to be quite good.
Art in 3rd and 4th ed was a bit hit and miss although you could say that about 2nd ed as well.
Cartoon art is fine when it is supposed to be a cartoon. PF art tends to be very good with the exception of the actual figures in their cre products. AP art tends to be quite good. Art in 3rd and 4th ed was a bit hit and miss although you could say t
having looked more carefully at the other pieces on the deviant art page, I really like most of them. I even like the same halfling in the "bunch of characters together" pic, just the halflings by themselves (esp the rogue biting the dagger) look deformed. So I am even willing to say I like general direction but dislike that particular one's stylistic flourish. The axe is a little ott imo, but this is a pretty small sin, and one I will accept in return for no chainmaile bikinis
having looked more carefully at the other pieces on the deviant art page, I really like most of them. I even like the same halfling in the "bunch of characters together" pic, just the halflings by themselves (esp the rogue biting the dagger) look def
I understand that the halfling race needs to be distinct and feel different. But does this difference necessarily mean that the race in question should be presented by cartoon art, or be caricaturized? When you draw a character in that style, you are saying D&D, the most well known role playing game in history that has players from 10 years of age to 60+ years, is a product and a game for kids. You may create a supporting brand called D&D cartoon, or D&D Junior and target children to introduce them to D&D world and game at a young age, then those drawings make sense. But for D&D itself, it only will alienate people that feel the game as a serious hobby.
I understand that the halfling race needs to be distinct and feel different. But does this difference necessarily mean that the race in question should be presented by cartoon art, or be caricaturized? When you draw a character in that style, you are
I also solidly fall in the hate the halflings camp. What is wrong with the art these last two editions? Who ithe asleep at the wheel art director I need to complain to?
I understand that the halfling race needs to be distinct and feel different. But does this difference necessarily mean that the race in question should be presented by cartoon art, or be caricaturized? When you draw a character in that style, you are saying D&D, the most well known role playing game in history that has players from 10 years of age to 60+ years, is a product and a game for kids. You may create a supporting brand called D&D cartoon, or D&D Junior and target children to introduce them to D&D world and game at a young age, then those drawings make sense. But for D&D itself, it only will alienate people that feel the game as a serious hobby.
Personally, I prefer the micro-human look. Less stylized, less whimsical, less "cartoony". The new halfling art looks like they stuck their heads in a beehive.
Ty, Jester. Personally, I prefer the micro-human look. Less stylized, less whimsical, less "cartoony". The new halfling art looks like they stuck their heads in a beehive.
I also solidly fall in the hate the halflings camp. What is wrong with the art these last two editions? Who ithe asleep at the wheel art director I need to complain to?
I love how their survey carefully ignores an actual "this halfling is horrible" option. I friggin hate 'em. I don't know how I could possibly sell this race to a friend of mine who wants to play D&D, 'cause the people it's speaking to definitely isn't anyone I know.
You know why the head thing is there? So they look like toddlers. Yes, it does have to do with our percption of size, especially on a humanoid form. I get it.
I showed these to a friend of mine and he said that it was an improvement insofar as throwing up down your front is preferable to pooing your pants.
What was wrong:www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...(also mentions who to complain to)[/quote]I love how their survey carefully ignores an actual "this halfling is horrible" option. I friggin hate 'em. I don't know how I could possibly sell th
After the uninspiring, micro humans of the past few editions, I would have been happy to go back to the 'hobbit-esque' version of the halfling. However, I'm pleasantly surprised with the direction they've gone.
As an aside, why is it that people get up in arms if D&D rips off Tolkien for halflings, but seem to have zero concern when it comes to elves or dwarves?
After the uninspiring, micro humans of the past few editions, I would have been happy to go back to the 'hobbit-esque' version of the halfling. However, I'm pleasantly surprised with the direction they've gone. As an aside, why is it that people ge
As an aside, why is it that people get up in arms if D&D rips off Tolkien for halflings, but seem to have zero concern when it comes to elves or dwarves?
They do, only less so. Probably because dwarves and elves have a bona fide mythological precedent, while short humans called "halflings" are directly taken from the work of one author.
They do, only less so. Probably because dwarves and elves have a bona fide mythological precedent, while short humans called "halflings" are directly taken from the work of one author.
As an aside, why is it that people get up in arms if D&D rips off Tolkien for halflings, but seem to have zero concern when it comes to elves or dwarves?
They do, only less so. Probably because dwarves and elves have a bona fide mythological precedent, while short humans called "halflings" are directly taken from the work of one author.
And orcs.
They do, only less so. Probably because dwarves and elves have a bona fide mythological precedent, while short humans called "halflings" are directly taken from the work of one author.[/quote]And orcs.
As an aside, why is it that people get up in arms if D&D rips off Tolkien for halflings, but seem to have zero concern when it comes to elves or dwarves?
They do, only less so. Probably because dwarves and elves have a bona fide mythological precedent, while short humans called "halflings" are directly taken from the work of one author.
And orcs.
True, though orcs are far, far more ubiquitous in video games, rpgs and other fantasy media, leading them to be overlooked by many as something setting-specific.
On the other hand, Tolkien has halflings and DnD has halflings. Most other properties don't seem to find them compeling enough to rip off.
They do, only less so. Probably because dwarves and elves have a bona fide mythological precedent, while short humans called "halflings" are directly taken from the work of one author.[/quote]And orcs.[/quote]True, though orcs are far, far more ubiqu
Why in the world should Halflings be silly or ridiculous?
I don't know. Why should Dwarves be stout and have beards? Why should Elves be slim and have pointy ears? Why should Minotaurs be big and have a bull's head? Why should Drow have black skin and white hair?
Doesn't follow. Sillyness and ridiculousness are not important traits of the halfling, or even particularly prominent traits, for that matter. That's all stuff you're adding in all on your own.
I don't know. Why should Dwarves be stout and have beards? Why should Elves be slim and have pointy ears? Why should Minotaurs be big and have a bull's head? Why should Drow have black skin and white hair?[/quote]Doesn't follow. Sillyness and ridicul
The halfling art is great for a children's story or a whimsical or cutesy fairy tale, but not for standard D&D art. I also don't care for the ilithid art--it doesn't look scary enough. I'm digging the aboleth and oger mage, though. The wood elf isn't bad, eyther.
No, sir, don't like it.The halfling art is great for a children's story or a whimsical or cutesy fairy tale, but not for standard D&D art. I also don't care for the ilithid art--it doesn't look scary enough. I'm digging the aboleth and oger mage, tho
Why in the world should Halflings be silly or ridiculous?
I don't know. Why should Dwarves be stout and have beards? Why should Elves be slim and have pointy ears? Why should Minotaurs be big and have a bull's head? Why should Drow have black skin and white hair?
Doesn't follow. Sillyness and ridiculousness are not important traits of the halfling, or even particularly prominent traits, for that matter. That's all stuff you're adding in all on your own.
I'm in complete agreement with you, Doctor. "Silly" and "ridiculous" have never been quinessential trait for halflings in D&D.
I don't know. Why should Dwarves be stout and have beards? Why should Elves be slim and have pointy ears? Why should Minotaurs be big and have a bull's head? Why should Drow have black skin and white hair?[/quote]Doesn't follow. Sillyness and ridicul
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Ive removed content from this thread because personal attacks are a violation of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Ive removed content from this thread because discussion of moderation is a violation of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making pe
Why in the world should Halflings be silly or ridiculous?
I don't know. Why should Dwarves be stout and have beards? Why should Elves be slim and have pointy ears? Why should Minotaurs be big and have a bull's head? Why should Drow have black skin and white hair?
Doesn't follow. Sillyness and ridiculousness are not important traits of the halfling, or even particularly prominent traits, for that matter. That's all stuff you're adding in all on your own.
I'm in complete agreement with you, Doctor. "Silly" and "ridiculous" have never been quinessential trait for halflings in D&D.
Or of Hobbits in LoTR, for that matter.
I don't know. Why should Dwarves be stout and have beards? Why should Elves be slim and have pointy ears? Why should Minotaurs be big and have a bull's head? Why should Drow have black skin and white hair?[/quote]Doesn't follow. Sillyness and ridicul
I agree 100% with the topic creator. I strongly dislike 5th editions take on Halflings! They are needlessly reinventing the wheel and the carriage is weaker because of it.
These halflings do NOT look like they could be forest dwelling cannibals or barbarians that ride dinosaurs. D&D Next is supposed to be inclusive yet this move simply bars out two whole settings! Ridiculous!
I agree 100% with the topic creator. I strongly dislike 5th editions take on Halflings! They are needlessly reinventing the wheel and the carriage is weaker because of it.These halflings do NOT look like they could be forest dwelling cannibals or bar
I agree 100% with the topic creator. I strongly dislike 5th editions take on Halflings! They are needlessly reinventing the wheel and the carriage is weaker because of it.
These halflings do NOT look like they could be forest dwelling cannibals or barbarians that ride dinosaurs. D&D Next is supposed to be inclusive yet this move simply bars out two whole settings! Ridiculous!
These halflings fit the description in the Next packet just fine. These aren't the halflings of Dark Sun. The packet wants to build these halflings, not those. Maybe in the future, with a module or whatever, they will build other types of halflings.
These halflings fit the description in the Next packet just fine. These aren't the halflings of Dark Sun. The packet wants to build these halflings, not those. Maybe in the future, with a module or whatever, they will build other types of halfling
I agree 100% with the topic creator. I strongly dislike 5th editions take on Halflings! They are needlessly reinventing the wheel and the carriage is weaker because of it.
These halflings do NOT look like they could be forest dwelling cannibals or barbarians that ride dinosaurs. D&D Next is supposed to be inclusive yet this move simply bars out two whole settings! Ridiculous!
These halflings fit the description in the Next packet just fine. These aren't the halflings of Dark Sun. The packet wants to build these halflings, not those. Maybe in the future, with a module or whatever, they will build other types of halflings.
Why are these halflings the default and not a module? Wouldn't one of the halflings from a former edition (I'm hoping for 4E/3rd halflings, but 2nd Edition ones can work better than these ones) fit the core system MUCH better?
The current Halflings do not fit into any kind of D&D I've ever played.
These halflings fit the description in the Next packet just fine. These aren't the halflings of Dark Sun. The packet wants to build these halflings, not those. Maybe in the future, with a module or whatever, they will build other types of halfling
I agree 100% with the topic creator. I strongly dislike 5th editions take on Halflings! They are needlessly reinventing the wheel and the carriage is weaker because of it.
These halflings do NOT look like they could be forest dwelling cannibals or barbarians that ride dinosaurs. D&D Next is supposed to be inclusive yet this move simply bars out two whole settings! Ridiculous!
These halflings fit the description in the Next packet just fine. These aren't the halflings of Dark Sun. The packet wants to build these halflings, not those. Maybe in the future, with a module or whatever, they will build other types of halflings.
Why are these halflings the default and not a module? Wouldn't one of the halflings from a former edition (I'm hoping for 4E/3rd halflings, but 2nd Edition ones can work better than these ones) fit the core system MUCH better?
The current Halflings do not fit into any kind of D&D I've ever played.
Welcome to the crux of all problems related to modules!
What you did was just ask the same question that has been asked a million times already, be it races, classes, powers, feats, you name it. I'll give you the famous answer many people use on this forum: "If you don't like it, don't use it. See how easy that is?"
Of course, that's a cop-out. The truth is when a group of people see these halflings you're going to get many that want to play them. And you don't want them like that. I feel your pain...
These halflings fit the description in the Next packet just fine. These aren't the halflings of Dark Sun. The packet wants to build these halflings, not those. Maybe in the future, with a module or whatever, they will build other types of halfling
As an aside, why is it that people get up in arms if D&D rips off Tolkien for halflings, but seem to have zero concern when it comes to elves or dwarves?
They do, only less so. Probably because dwarves and elves have a bona fide mythological precedent, while short humans called "halflings" are directly taken from the work of one author.
And orcs.
Actually, Orcs are a D&D only thing. The name is stolen from Tolkien, but the making them into it's own separate race is pure Gygax and Arneson.
See, in Lord of The Rings novels, Orcs and Goblins are actually the same thing.
Still hate the ungainly halfling.
They do, only less so. Probably because dwarves and elves have a bona fide mythological precedent, while short humans called "halflings" are directly taken from the work of one author.[/quote]And orcs.[/quote]Actually, Orcs are a D&D only thing. The
I rather like the halfling concept art. The whimsical feel is not an issue to me. I have two complaints, however. One, they seem a bit top heavy, as their proportions are essentially an inverted triangle. Two, the halfling rogue has some serious masculine facial features going on, and it's not attractive in the slightest.
Edit: All the female halflings seem to have manish features. Even the strongheart child looks a bit man-like. The female shield dwarf also looks like a man. I do like this art style, however. I really do.
I rather like the halfling concept art. The whimsical feel is not an issue to me. I have two complaints, however. One, they seem a bit top heavy, as their proportions are essentially an inverted triangle. Two, the halfling rogue has some serious
As an aside, why is it that people get up in arms if D&D rips off Tolkien for halflings, but seem to have zero concern when it comes to elves or dwarves?
They do, only less so. Probably because dwarves and elves have a bona fide mythological precedent, while short humans called "halflings" are directly taken from the work of one author.
And orcs.
Actually, Orcs are a D&D only thing. The name is stolen from Tolkien, but the making them into it's own separate race is pure Gygax and Arneson.
Not quite, orcs are a perversion of elves by Morgoth, and Tolkien got the word orc from the word "yrch", from some European mythology (as that was his thing).
The Noldor were originally called Gnomes.
They do, only less so. Probably because dwarves and elves have a bona fide mythological precedent, while short humans called "halflings" are directly taken from the work of one author.[/quote]And orcs.[/quote]Actually, Orcs are a D&D only thing. The
As an aside, why is it that people get up in arms if D&D rips off Tolkien for halflings, but seem to have zero concern when it comes to elves or dwarves?
They do, only less so. Probably because dwarves and elves have a bona fide mythological precedent, while short humans called "halflings" are directly taken from the work of one author.
And orcs.
Actually, Orcs are a D&D only thing. The name is stolen from Tolkien, but the making them into it's own separate race is pure Gygax and Arneson.
Not quite, orcs are a perversion of elves by Morgoth, and Tolkien got the word orc from the word "yrch", from some European mythology (as that was his thing).
The Noldor were originally called Gnomes.
Orc comes from Beowulf according to Tolkein.
They do, only less so. Probably because dwarves and elves have a bona fide mythological precedent, while short humans called "halflings" are directly taken from the work of one author.[/quote]And orcs.[/quote]Actually, Orcs are a D&D only thing. The
One of the problems with half sized humans is the unchanging proportions. Halfling a human quarters the size of their brain (three dimensions, so halved half). 4e halflings (aka three-quarterlings) have brains a little more than half the size of a normal person. In contrast, children - like the new halfling art - have a much larger head-to-body ratio.
A picture is worth a 1000 words. So here's me resized to the size of a 3e and 4e halfling.
And here's a toddler in the 3e halfling size/weight table made human sized. The proportions are even more dramatic than those of the concept art.
One of the problems with half sized humans is the unchanging proportions. Halfling a human quarters the size of their brain (three dimensions, so halved half). 4e halflings (aka three-quarterlings) have brains a little more than half the size of a no
The analysis of both Jester & Wrecan make me think that the halfling proportions aren't all that bad. I would still make their feet bigger (they seem too ready to tip over otherwise), but a new light has been shown. Thanks!
The analysis of both Jester & Wrecan make me think that the halfling proportions aren't all that bad. I would still make their feet bigger (they seem too ready to tip over otherwise), but a new light has been shown. Thanks!
I really like the new Halfling art, bit i think that art fits better for the stout/strongheart subrace (it brings inmediate sympathy, +1 Car), i´ll keep the 4e art for the lightfoot, cuz that screams agility, +1 Dex. What do you think?
I really like the new Halfling art, bit i think that art fits better for the stout/strongheart subrace (it brings inmediate sympathy, +1 Car), i´ll keep the 4e art for the lightfoot, cuz that screams agility, +1 Dex. What do you think?
One of the problems with half sized humans is the unchanging proportions. Halfling a human quarters the size of their brain (three dimensions, so halved half). 4e halflings (aka three-quarterlings) have brains a little more than half the size of a normal person. In contrast, children - like the new halfling art - have a much larger head-to-body ratio.
Halving a human's height and adjusting the other dimensions to scale actually cuts the volume of their brain in eighths (1/8 = (1/2)^3). However, if you're worried about halflings with proportional brains being too stupid to function, fear not! It turns out that for whatever reason, proportional brain size relative to body mass has a reasonable correlation with species intelligence (insofar as we can actually measure that). For instance, humans are generally regarded to be smarter than most species of whales, despite cetaceans' much more massive brains.
Halving a human's height and adjusting the other dimensions to scale actually cuts the volume of their brain in eighths (1/8 = (1/2)^3). However, if you're worried about halflings with proportional brains being too stupid to function, fear not! It
One of the problems with half sized humans is the unchanging proportions. Halfling a human quarters the size of their brain (three dimensions, so halved half). 4e halflings (aka three-quarterlings) have brains a little more than half the size of a normal person. In contrast, children - like the new halfling art - have a much larger head-to-body ratio.
Halving a human's height and adjusting the other dimensions to scale actually cuts the volume of their brain in eighths (1/8 = (1/2)^3). However, if you're worried about halflings with proportional brains being too stupid to function, fear not! It turns out that for whatever reason, proportional brain size relative to body mass has a reasonable correlation with species intelligence (insofar as we can actually measure that). For instance, humans are generally regarded to be smarter than most species of whales, despite cetaceans' much more massive brains.
True, but humans with microcephaly (small brains) have brains somewhere between 70-80% a regular human and they have intense retardation. Halfings, with brains even smaller (a quarter the size a microcephalic) are pushing it.
Halving a human's height and adjusting the other dimensions to scale actually cuts the volume of their brain in eighths (1/8 = (1/2)^3). However, if you're worried about halflings with proportional brains being too stupid to function, fear not! It
Neat analysis Jester. It took the image you made and inserted the halfling pic....
The halfling seems pretty proportional to a human child.
They line up nicely, likely too nicely to be coincidence. I imagine they did something simmilar in the office. As someone else mentioned, a little larger feet would help reduce the "cartoonish" look, but it is just concept art.
They line up nicely, likely too nicely to be coincidence. I imagine they did something simmilar in the office. As someone else mentioned, a little larger feet would help reduce the "cartoonish" look, but it is just concept art.
True, but humans with microcephaly (small brains) have brains somewhere between 70-80% a regular human and they have intense retardation. Halfings, with brains even smaller (a quarter the size a microcephalic) are pushing it.
They're a different species though (or something); they aren't the same sized creature with a different sized brain.
Also, magic!
They're a different species though (or something); they aren't the same sized creature with a different sized brain.Also, magic!
Of the myriads of things that I've found disappointing about Next, there is no doubt that this presentation of the halfling is the most painful. I had really hoped for a continuation of 3rd edition halflings (and 4th, I think? I don't remember how they appeared in 4th at all). But to regress to something that makes 1st edition look cosmopolitan? To intentionally proportion them as toddlers?!
"Beware, yon heroes do come this way! I spy among them a cruel-seeming half-orc, an elven archer, a dwarven axemen, and a toddler whose sole purpose must be comic relief!"
I very nearly dropped my glass of tea when the picture loaded. I cannot express just how much I despise this presentation.
Of the myriads of things that I've found disappointing about Next, there is no doubt that this presentation of the halfling is the most painful. I had really hoped for a continuation of 3rd edition halflings (and 4th, I think? I don't remember how
True, but humans with microcephaly (small brains) have brains somewhere between 70-80% a regular human and they have intense retardation. Halfings, with brains even smaller (a quarter the size a microcephalic) are pushing it.
They're a different species though (or something); they aren't the same sized creature with a different sized brain.
Also, magic!
Different species means you can get away with shifting the proportions a little and not having and intelligence penalty. It gives you some wiggle room but when their head is the size of my clenched fist and their brain is nearing the size of a dinosaur's it starts pushing verisimilitude.
Magic is a way to make the world special. It's not a crutch to justify silliness or bad science. When evoking "magic" there should be a reason, the magic should have a purpose and not just justifying quirks of the mechanics, laziness, or mistakes.
They're a different species though (or something); they aren't the same sized creature with a different sized brain.Also, magic! [/quote]Different species means you can get away with shifting the proportions a little and not having and intelligence p
Of the myriads of things that I've found disappointing about Next, there is no doubt that this presentation of the halfling is the most painful. I had really hoped for a continuation of 3rd edition halflings (and 4th, I think? I don't remember how they appeared in 4th at all). But to regress to something that makes 1st edition look cosmopolitan? To intentionally proportion them as toddlers?!
"Beware, yon heroes do come this way! I spy among them a cruel-seeming half-orc, an elven archer, a dwarven axemen, and a toddler whose sole purpose must be comic relief!"
I very nearly dropped my glass of tea when the picture loaded. I cannot express just how much I despise this presentation.
In 4e they all appeared as rastafarians. It was novel and neat at first. Then became great flavor. But, then after a few years and looking back, we thought - huh? But, overall I'd give them a B-.
These new halfling I'd give a solid B. Not sure how I'll feel in five years, but right now I'm digging it.
In 4e they all appeared as rastafarians. It was novel and neat at first. Then became great flavor. But, then after a few years and looking back, we thought - huh? But, overall I'd give them a B-.These new halfling I'd give a solid B. Not sure ho
Different species means you can get away with shifting the proportions a little and not having and intelligence penalty.
Err, I'm saying if you don't shift the proportions at all, and you don't need an intelligence penalty. Dolphins are (probably) smarter than blue whales, despite having much smaller brains. Humans are (probably) smarter than elephants, despite having much smaller brains. In other words, brain size is positively correlated with intelligence within the same species, but a lot less so between different species.
Magic is a way to make the world special. It's not a crutch to justify silliness or bad science. When evoking "magic" there should be a reason, the magic should have a purpose and not just justifying quirks of the mechanics, laziness, or mistakes.
That was a joke. :P
Err, I'm saying if you don't shift the proportions at all, and you don't need an intelligence penalty. Dolphins are (probably) smarter than blue whales, despite having much smaller brains. Humans are (probably) smarter than elephants, despite havin
Brain size... pixie around the size of a peanut ... intelligence atleast moderate if not high .. forget your science for this one dudes, fantasy rules.
Brain size... pixie around the size of a peanut ... intelligence atleast moderate if not high .. forget your science for this one dudes, fantasy rules.
Brain size... pixie around the size of a peanut ... intelligence atleast moderate if not high .. forget your science for this one dudes, fantasy rules.
To be fair, Pixies avert that problem because they're inherently magical creatures. Halflings, on the other hand, are completely mundane creatures, just like Humans, so they have to make a bit more sense.
To be fair, Pixies avert that problem because they're inherently magical creatures. Halflings, on the other hand, are completely mundane creatures, just like Humans, so they have to make a bit more sense.
Brain size... pixie around the size of a peanut ... intelligence atleast moderate if not high .. forget your science for this one dudes, fantasy rules.
To be fair, Pixies avert that problem because they're inherently magical creatures. Halflings, on the other hand, are completely mundane creatures, just like Humans, so they have to make a bit more sense.
And having them built like toddlers is how you deal with it? Also, I take exception with them being 3ft tall. That's the size of a 4 year old. Remember 3.x's 'small weapon' debacle? You want to bring that back?
Why don't you guys pick on a fictional being your own size?
...uh... ...Um... I am...
To be fair, Pixies avert that problem because they're inherently magical creatures. Halflings, on the other hand, are completely mundane creatures, just like Humans, so they have to make a bit more sense.[/quote]And having them built like toddlers is
And having them built like toddlers is how you deal with it?
I've yet to see any answer that's both as good, makes as much sense, and fits the Halfling's theme so well.
...I have to ask...do you actually play halflings? I'm having a lot of trouble imagining someone who enjoys playing proper halflings thinking that making them into (effectively) toddlers is a great way to fit their theme. Not saying it isn't possible of course.
I've yet to see any answer that's both as good, makes as much sense, and fits the Halfling's theme so well.[/quote]...I have to ask...do you actually play halflings? I'm having a lot of trouble imagining someone who enjoys playing proper halflings t
...I have to ask...do you actually play halflings?
I've only played one, a Rogue, but I enjoyed her immensely. In fact, I've included her as a prominent NPC in games that I've DMed for other groups, and she's always a hit.
I'm having a lot of trouble imagining someone who enjoys playing proper halflings thinking that making them into (effectively) toddlers is a great way to fit their theme. Not saying it isn't possible of course.
Let's watch how we use that word. We don't want to get into any "No True Scotsman" arguments.
I've only played one, a Rogue, but I enjoyed her immensely. In fact, I've included her as a prominent NPC in games that I've DMed for other groups, and she's always a hit.Let's watch how we use that word. We don't want to get into any "No True Scotsm
Let's watch how we use that word. We don't want to get into any "No True Scotsman" arguments.
*laugh*
Fair enough. Wasn't the angle I was taking, meant more like 'a halfling as a serious character' instead of an intentional joke character was all.
Thank you.
*laugh*Fair enough. Wasn't the angle I was taking, meant more like 'a halfling as a serious character' instead of an intentional joke character was all.Thank you.
Wasn't the angle I was taking, meant more like 'a halfling as a serious character' instead of an intentional joke character was all.
Oh, she's a serious character. She has a tragic, revenge-driven back-story with a bit of a grim resolution, and she's so charismatic and politically calculating that she took over 98% of seafaring pirate organizations on the planet and turned them around into a single recognized oceanic nation, now the wealthiest nation on her planet due to their ludicrous profits from trade. There's very little silly about her.
Oh, she's a serious character. She has a tragic, revenge-driven back-story with a bit of a grim resolution, and she's so charismatic and politically calculating that she took over 98% of seafaring pirate organizations on the planet and turned them ar
One of the problems with half sized humans is the unchanging proportions. Halfling a human quarters the size of their brain (three dimensions, so halved half). 4e halflings (aka three-quarterlings) have brains a little more than half the size of a normal person. In contrast, children - like the new halfling art - have a much larger head-to-body ratio.
The proportions are even more dramatic than those of the concept art.
While that's interesting, the "hobbit" or Homo floresiensis had a skull less than one third the size of a human's, but the brain was formatted differently, and we know for sure they made and used relatively well crafted tools, using techniques well out of the reach of chimps, but similar to those used by homo sapiens of similar timeframe.
So, it's not necessary that a small sentient humanoid species have toddler like proportions.
True, but humans with microcephaly (small brains) have brains somewhere between 70-80% a regular human and they have intense retardation. Halfings, with brains even smaller (a quarter the size a microcephalic) are pushing it.
That's a human with a brain much smaller than a human brain is supposed to be. Halflings aren't humans.
Again, Homo floresiensis. A species with a smaller brain is not necessarily less intelligent (at all, much less noticeably) than one with a larger brain.
From wikipedia:
An indicator of intelligence is the size of Brodmann's area 10, the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain associated with higher cognition. LB1's region 10 is about the same size as that of modern humans, despite the much smaller overall size of the brain.[5]
Notwithstanding the small brain of H. floresiensis, the discoverers have associated it with advanced behaviors. Their cave shows evidence of the use of fire for cooking, and Stegodon bones associated with the hominins have cut marks.[2][3] The hominin specimens have also been associated with stone tools of the sophisticated Upper Paleolithic tradition typically associated with modern humans, who have nearly quadruple the brain volume (1,310–1,475 cm3 (80–90.0 cu in)) and 2.6 times greater body mass. Some of these tools were apparently used in the necessarily cooperativehunting of Stegodon by these hominins.[2]
While that's interesting, the "hobbit" or Homo floresiensis had a skull less than one third the size of a human's, but the brain was formatted differently, and we know for sure they made and used relatively well crafted tools, using techniques well o
Half as tall as humans was the Tolkein hobbit... and completely mundane? However the halfling - wee folk are as magical or not as one might want them to be, and sorry this is a fantasy verse sublime magic permeates.
Half as tall as humans was the Tolkein hobbit... and completely mundane? However the halfling - wee folk are as magical or not as one might want them to be, and sorry this is a fantasy verse sublime magic permeates.
To my knowledge, Halflings have never by default been flavored as any more magical than Humans are. They are perhaps considered lucky, but that's about it. They're as mundane as races get.
To my knowledge, Halflings have never by default been flavored as any more magical than Humans are. They are perhaps considered lucky, but that's about it. They're as mundane as races get.
I am asserting as "as races get" is not necessarily very mundane at all I would say so completely not mundane that applying scientific limits to "appearance" is an arbitrary restriction of the fantasy...and is utterly rediculous.
Yes that bits a tolkein heritageI am asserting as "as races get" is not necessarily very mundane at all I would say so completely not mundane that applying scientific limits to "appearance" is an arbitrary restriction of the fantasy...and is utterly
Proprtion? Sure. it's a fine model to show whan a creature that size might be. Contrary to what people had been saying, it's not unrealistic. And comparing the halfling art to The Jester's toddler pic, the feet don't particularly appear too thin or small.
So, suddenly, the criticism has to change. Instead of "unrealistic" or "cartoonish", now it's "infantilizing". Well, no. The halfling has adult features within the childish proportions. Broad shoulders, facial hair, facial lines, etc.
At any rate, the whole point of Tolkein creating the hobbit as a half-size human was to give them a childish quality. Which is not to make them children. But to give them a visual representation of their metaphorical innocence.
Now, I can understand the aesthetic issue people may have with this. For people who liked halflings as humans writ small, this is a change.
But I also understand why Jon Schidehette had problems with the Fantastc Voyage halfling. They were just humans. I mean take a look at the 4e halfling pic roduced earlier in this thread. How are we to know this isn't a human? It means a halfling has no visual identity. It's just a human until we have some other object stuck in the frame. Adult features in childish proportion gives the halfling visual identity.
Proprtion? Sure. it's a fine model to show whan a creature that size might be. Contrary to what people had been saying, it's not unrealistic. And comparing the halfling art to The Jester's toddler pic, the feet don't particularly appear too thin
I am asserting as "as races get" is not necessarily very mundane at all...
If you can find any indication that Halflings have ever been considered anything but totally mundane as races, I am absolutely all ears.
I would say so completely not mundane that applying scientific limits to "appearance" is an arbitrary restriction of the fantasy...and is utterly rediculous.
I do not necessarily disagree with this (though I do happen to specifically in this case of Halflings). I'm just saying.
I'm sorry, but could you work on your use of punctuation or something because it's actually pretty difficult to read your posts sometimes.If you can find any indication that Halflings have ever been considered anything but totally mundane as races, I
Proprtion? Sure. it's a fine model to show whan a creature that size might be. Contrary to what people had been saying, it's not unrealistic. And comparing the halfling art to The Jester's toddler pic, the feet don't particularly appear too thin or small.
yes they did.
Proprtion? Sure. it's a fine model to show whan a creature that size might be. Contrary to what people had been saying, it's not unrealistic. And comparing the halfling art to The Jester's toddler pic, the feet don't particularly appear too thin
I am asserting as "as races get" is not necessarily very mundane at all...
If you can find any indication that Halflings have ever been considered anything but totally mundane as races, I am absolutely all ears.
I would say so completely not mundane that applying scientific limits to "appearance" is an arbitrary restriction of the fantasy...and is utterly rediculous.
I do not necessarily disagree with this (though I do happen to specifically in this case of Halflings). I'm just saying.
The hobbit was meant to somehow have faded in to a merger with humans a combination of drinking magical ent water and some of them getting larger...
But really what I mean is when the universe you are in is supporting Giants that break with square cube strength rules and various other anomolies of physics the most mundane we can imagine doesnt need to be realistic at all (and yes there were a race of humans somebody dubbed halflings who had small heads in real life.
Peoples expectations are going to be based on the lord of the rings and the hobbit movies folks...
I can see the desire for identification of size through porportion but I think it will fail to evoke the fantasy.
If you can find any indication that Halflings have ever been considered anything but totally mundane as races, I am absolutely all ears.I do not necessarily disagree with this (though I do happen to specifically in this case of Halflings). I'm just s
Proprtion? Sure. it's a fine model to show whan a creature that size might be. Contrary to what people had been saying, it's not unrealistic. And comparing the halfling art to The Jester's toddler pic, the feet don't particularly appear too thin or small.
yes they did.
I would not call that disproprtion significant. (Note I accommodated the thickness of shoe leather.)
Proprtion? Sure. it's a fine model to show whan a creature that size might be. Contrary to what people had been saying, it's not unrealistic. And comparing the halfling art to The Jester's toddler pic, the feet don't particularly appear too thin
Proprtion? Sure. it's a fine model to show whan a creature that size might be. Contrary to what people had been saying, it's not unrealistic. And comparing the halfling art to The Jester's toddler pic, the feet don't particularly appear too thin or small.
yes they did.
I would not call that disproprtion significant. (Note I accommodated the thickness of shoe leather.)
See the bulge upward on the halfling foot that my brain called the big toe ... meaning that foot for me looks more like 32 pixels wide, ie pointy...
Proprtion? Sure. it's a fine model to show whan a creature that size might be. Contrary to what people had been saying, it's not unrealistic. And comparing the halfling art to The Jester's toddler pic, the feet don't particularly appear too thin
I like the halflings art. The style of the artist might be a bit cartoonish but I have no qualms with the idea behind the depiction (although I do think the feet are too small).
A non-threatening and innocent image, child-like proportions and not being taken all too seriously by their taller neighbours, the humans, is part of the halfling identitie. Without that imageBelkar and Dark-sun cannibal halflings don't really work because the contrast is gone. In the same way that having Robin William play a villain gives an extra contrast to that role than when you have Danny Trejo play it.
I like the halflings art. The style of the artist might be a bit cartoonish but I have no qualms with the idea behind the depiction (although I do think the feet are too small).A non-threatening and innocent image, child-like proportions and not bein
Different species means you can get away with shifting the proportions a little and not having and intelligence penalty.
Err, I'm saying if you don't shift the proportions at all, and you don't need an intelligence penalty. Dolphins are (probably) smarter than blue whales, despite having much smaller brains. Humans are (probably) smarter than elephants, despite having much smaller brains. In other words, brain size is positively correlated with intelligence within the same species, but a lot less so between different species.
Magic is a way to make the world special. It's not a crutch to justify silliness or bad science. When evoking "magic" there should be a reason, the magic should have a purpose and not just justifying quirks of the mechanics, laziness, or mistakes.
That was a joke. :P
Dolphin brains a larely the same as human brains though. Intelligence is less about size and more about a brain to body ratio. The Encephalization quotient. Large animals with brains bigger than a human's have a very low one. But even in terms of mid-sized animals the human brain is big. It's much larger than a horse's brain and that animal be huge.
Err, I'm saying if you don't shift the proportions at all, and you don't need an intelligence penalty. Dolphins are (probably) smarter than blue whales, despite having much smaller brains. Humans are (probably) smarter than elephants, despite havin
One of the problems with half sized humans is the unchanging proportions. Halfling a human quarters the size of their brain (three dimensions, so halved half). 4e halflings (aka three-quarterlings) have brains a little more than half the size of a normal person. In contrast, children - like the new halfling art - have a much larger head-to-body ratio.
The proportions are even more dramatic than those of the concept art.
While that's interesting, the "hobbit" or Homo floresiensis had a skull less than one third the size of a human's, but the brain was formatted differently, and we know for sure they made and used relatively well crafted tools, using techniques well out of the reach of chimps, but similar to those used by homo sapiens of similar timeframe.
So, it's not necessary that a small sentient humanoid species have toddler like proportions.
True, but humans with microcephaly (small brains) have brains somewhere between 70-80% a regular human and they have intense retardation. Halfings, with brains even smaller (a quarter the size a microcephalic) are pushing it.
That's a human with a brain much smaller than a human brain is supposed to be. Halflings aren't humans.
Again, Homo floresiensis. A species with a smaller brain is not necessarily less intelligent (at all, much less noticeably) than one with a larger brain.
From wikipedia:
An indicator of intelligence is the size of Brodmann's area 10, the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain associated with higher cognition. LB1's region 10 is about the same size as that of modern humans, despite the much smaller overall size of the brain.[5]
Notwithstanding the small brain of H. floresiensis, the discoverers have associated it with advanced behaviors. Their cave shows evidence of the use of fire for cooking, and Stegodon bones associated with the hominins have cut marks.[2][3] The hominin specimens have also been associated with stone tools of the sophisticated Upper Paleolithic tradition typically associated with modern humans, who have nearly quadruple the brain volume (1,310–1,475 cm3 (80–90.0 cu in)) and 2.6 times greater body mass. Some of these tools were apparently used in the necessarily cooperativehunting of Stegodon by these hominins.[2]
Well they used tools of the era prior. The Upper Paleolithic did span 40,000 years. And they lived until fairly recently, so they were likely thousand of years behind us. When they died out we were crossing the landbridge from Asia and first colonizing the Americas. They were smart, compared to cave men. They were smart, but likely not our equals.
Their brain size was a quarter of ours, and would be comparable to the three-quarterlings of 4e. If we're going for the smaller 1e-3e halflings, more akin to Hobbit size, then their brains would be half the size of Homo floresiensis.
While that's interesting, the "hobbit" or Homo floresiensis had a skull less than one third the size of a human's, but the brain was formatted differently, and we know for sure they made and used relatively well crafted tools, using techniques well o
I am asserting as "as races get" is not necessarily very mundane at all I would say so completely not mundane that applying scientific limits to "appearance" is an arbitrary restriction of the fantasy...and is utterly rediculous.
So between the two options of: a) halfling proportions are not identical to humans’ (a race they have no relation to) b) halflings are magical creatures with brains powered by pixie dust Option A is bad because it's arbitrary? And that's the ridiculous option?
Halflings are not a magical race. I'll buy the "magic brains" handwaving for gnomes. But halflings are as common as dirt. Falling back on a "wizard did it" seems unecassary when you can make things reasonable (and realistic) by shifting a few lines.
I am asserting as "as races get" is not necessarily very mundane at all I would say so completely not mundane that applying scientific limits to "appearance" is an arbitrary restriction of the fantasy...and is utterly rediculous.[/quote]So between th
See the bulge upward on the halfling foot that my brain called the big toe ...
Look at the other shoe in the same picture. It's just a shoe with an upturned toe that comes to a central point. It's a pretty common look for a fantasy shoe, and that upturned part should be empty. Nobody's toes lift off the ground like that. (And if they did, his foot would be comically long as well as deformed.)
By my calculation, his foot is 110 pixels long at the longest and 64 pixels wide at the widest. That's a ratio of 1.72, and 6 pixels longer than the 1.62 ratio of a human foot. (If you include the upturned toe part, the foot is 122 pixels long, with a ratio of 1.9.)
The feet are, in fact, fine. People who want the foot to be wider or longer are in fact asking for the halfling to be more cartoonish, or alternatively, are asking for Tolkeinish hobbit feet. If understand the latter, but not the former.
Look at the other shoe in the same picture. It's just a shoe with an upturned toe that comes to a central point. It's a pretty common look for a fantasy shoe, and that upturned part should be empty. Nobody's toes lift off the ground like that. (A
I am asserting as "as races get" is not necessarily very mundane at all I would say so completely not mundane that applying scientific limits to "appearance" is an arbitrary restriction of the fantasy...and is utterly rediculous.
So between the two options of: a) halfling proportions are not identical to humans’ (a race they have no relation to) b) halflings are magical creatures with brains powered by
creatures in a magical fantasy universe not following mechanistic rules of brain mass conforming to brain capacity. See earlier about even our universe not really conforming to that with elephants and similar having larger less intelligent brains.
Actual brain power is based on complexity not size...
I am asserting as "as races get" is not necessarily very mundane at all I would say so completely not mundane that applying scientific limits to "appearance" is an arbitrary restriction of the fantasy...and is utterly rediculous.[/quote]So between th
Peoples expectations are going to be based on the lord of the rings and the hobbit movies folks...
I agree that one of the halfling subraces should be the hairfoot, with oversized fuzzy feet and no shoes.
I watched the Hobbit Saturday and I chuckled when Galadrial asked Gandalf "Why the Halfling?"
I agree that one of the halfling subraces should be the hairfoot, with oversized fuzzy feet and no shoes.[/quote]I watched the Hobbit Saturday and I chuckled when Galadrial asked Gandalf "Why the Halfling?"
Peoples expectations are going to be based on the lord of the rings and the hobbit movies folks...
I agree that one of the halfling subraces should be the hairfoot, with oversized fuzzy feet and no shoes.
I watched the Hobbit Saturday and I chuckled when Galadrial asked Gandalf "Why the Halfling?"
Honestly, I'm still asking that question...
I agree that one of the halfling subraces should be the hairfoot, with oversized fuzzy feet and no shoes.[/quote]I watched the Hobbit Saturday and I chuckled when Galadrial asked Gandalf "Why the Halfling?"[/quote]Honestly, I'm still asking that ques
Dolphin brains a larely the same as human brains though. Intelligence is less about size and more about a brain to body ratio. The Encephalization quotient. Large animals with brains bigger than a human's have a very low one.
Sure, and if you scale down a person to halfling size, and scale down their brain to the same degree, the brain to body ratio stays the same. Of course the reality is that this is a pretty simplistic metric for intelligence (and in fact it's all determined ex post facto by fitting the data for various animals onto a curve, so I'm not sure it can even be used predictively). Maybe halflings' cerebral cortices are more are wrinkly.
Sure, and if you scale down a person to halfling size, and scale down their brain to the same degree, the brain to body ratio stays the same. Of course the reality is that this is a pretty simplistic metric for intelligence (and in fact it's all det
Jester: the forums hate me, so I had to manually quote you.
"Well they used tools of the era prior. The Upper Paleolithic did span 40,000 years. And they lived until fairly recently, so they were likely thousand of years behind us. When they died out we were crossing the landbridge from Asia and first colonizing the Americas. They were smart, compared to cave men. They were smart, but likely not our equals. "
The tools found in around them ranged as "recent" as 13,000 years ago. Same era as the bones. Also of note, their the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, which is associated with higher cognition, was about the same size as modern human's, in spite of the smaller overall brain size. Considering the range of tech advancement within modern humans of the same era in different regions, there is no tool based argument against flo hobbits' intelligence.
"Their brain size was a quarter of ours, and would be comparable to the three-quarterlings of 4e. If we're going for the smaller 1e-3e halflings, more akin to Hobbit size, then their brains would be half the size of Homo floresiensis. "
And that fact would still be completely meaningless when talking about an entirely different species. Also, Homo floresiensis stood about 3 ft 6 in. That's a pretty easy compromise to make halflings the same height on average, instead of 6 inches shorter on average.
most importantly, the question of what makes intelligence is not solved. We have some good theories, and we know some contributing factors, that seem to pan out over a large number of species, but we're proving ourselves wrong on the details all the time.
There is no particular reason to believe that a race much smaller than humans couldn't be as intelligent or more intelligent.
Another important note. Halflings don't have to either have toddler proportions or normal adult human proportions. It would just as easily be something in between, or different than either.
Jester: the forums hate me, so I had to manually quote you. "Well they used tools of the era prior. The Upper Paleolithic did span 40,000 years. And they lived until fairly recently, so they were likely thousand of years behind us. When they died out
Dolphin brains a larely the same as human brains though. Intelligence is less about size and more about a brain to body ratio. The Encephalization quotient. Large animals with brains bigger than a human's have a very low one.
Sure, and if you scale down a person to halfling size, and scale down their brain to the same degree, the brain to body ratio stays the same. Of course the reality is that this is a pretty simplistic metric for intelligence (and in fact it's all determined ex post facto by fitting the data for various animals onto a curve, so I'm not sure it can even be used predictively). Maybe halflings' cerebral cortices are more are wrinkly.
Yup... its complexity not size, and also the science angle is all around nonsense.
What the real issue is the desire for visual cues which differentiate the halfling from human and mark them as small or distinct.
Sure, and if you scale down a person to halfling size, and scale down their brain to the same degree, the brain to body ratio stays the same. Of course the reality is that this is a pretty simplistic metric for intelligence (and in fact it's all det
Dolphin brains a larely the same as human brains though. Intelligence is less about size and more about a brain to body ratio. The Encephalization quotient. Large animals with brains bigger than a human's have a very low one.
Sure, and if you scale down a person to halfling size, and scale down their brain to the same degree, the brain to body ratio stays the same. Of course the reality is that this is a pretty simplistic metric for intelligence (and in fact it's all determined ex post facto by fitting the data for various animals onto a curve, so I'm not sure it can even be used predictively). Maybe halflings' cerebral cortices are more are wrinkly.
Yup... its complexity not size, and also the science angle is all around nonsense.
What the real issue is the desire for visual cues which differentiate the halfling from human and mark them as small or distinct.
Very true. The fact it also helps solve the halfling intelligence parodox is a fringe benefit.
Sure, and if you scale down a person to halfling size, and scale down their brain to the same degree, the brain to body ratio stays the same. Of course the reality is that this is a pretty simplistic metric for intelligence (and in fact it's all det
The classic non-tolkein elf is actually quite neotonous. Including, large eyes, minimal body hair etc and probably so in psychology as well as physiology.
The classic non-tolkein elf is actually quite neotonous. Including, large eyes, minimal body hair etc and probably so in psychology as well as physiology.
Jester: the forums hate me, so I had to manually quote you.
"Well they used tools of the era prior. The Upper Paleolithic did span 40,000 years. And they lived until fairly recently, so they were likely thousand of years behind us. When they died out we were crossing the landbridge from Asia and first colonizing the Americas. They were smart, compared to cave men. They were smart, but likely not our equals. "
The tools found in around them ranged as "recent" as 13,000 years ago. Same era as the bones. Also of note, their the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, which is associated with higher cognition, was about the same size as modern human's, in spite of the smaller overall brain size. Considering the range of tech advancement within modern humans of the same era in different regions, there is no tool based argument against flo hobbits' intelligence.
"Their brain size was a quarter of ours, and would be comparable to the three-quarterlings of 4e. If we're going for the smaller 1e-3e halflings, more akin to Hobbit size, then their brains would be half the size of Homo floresiensis. "
And that fact would still be completely meaningless when talking about an entirely different species. Also, Homo floresiensis stood about 3 ft 6 in. That's a pretty easy compromise to make halflings the same height on average, instead of 6 inches shorter on average.
most importantly, the question of what makes intelligence is not solved. We have some good theories, and we know some contributing factors, that seem to pan out over a large number of species, but we're proving ourselves wrong on the details all the time.
There is no particular reason to believe that a race much smaller than humans couldn't be as intelligent or more intelligent.
The tools were as old as the bones, yes. That's how old they were. But the technology level of the tools was a span that lasts fom 50,000 years ago to 10,000, and ended shortly after the race died. If they were holding tools equivalent of humans of the time (with no sign of trade) that would have been impressive but if they had been holding tools from the early part of the era that suggests they'd be behind. The information we're given in the articles is sketchy that way. It's like saying you found remains that died 20 years ago accompanied with 20th Century technology. Okay, but that includes tech as diverse as the Model T and a F150.
They may have been intelligent for the time, but that doesn't mean they have the same potential intelligence as a human. We have no way of knowing how intelligent they were. The humans of the era, if plucked out of time as an infant and raised in the modern era have all the chances of being brain surgeons and rocket scientists as any other human born today. 13,000 years ago, humans had vast untappen potential. Homo floresiensis... they'd likely cap out somewhere along the line.
Another important note. Halflings don't have to either have toddler proportions or normal adult human proportions. It would just as easily be something in between, or different than either.
I do agree with this. I think the proportions are more realistic than you'd easily believe, but they're so exagerrated the push credulity. They really emphasise the halflings innocent nature and make them visually distinct from humans (and gnomes). But it might work better if the heads were a dash smaller (less toddler more kindergarten) and feet enlarged slightly.
The tools were as old as the bones, yes. That's how old they were. But the technology level of the tools was a span that lasts fom 50,000 years ago to 10,000, and ended shortly after the race died. If they were holding tools equivalent of humans of t
We have no way of knowing how intelligent they were. The humans of the era, if plucked out of time as an infant and raised in the modern era have all the chances of being brain surgeons and rocket scientists as any other human born today. 13,000 years ago, humans had vast untappen potential. Homo floresiensis... they'd likely cap out somewhere along the line.
Another important note. Halflings don't have to either have toddler proportions or normal adult human proportions. It would just as easily be something in between, or different than either.
I do agree with this. I think the proportions are more realistic than you'd easily believe, but they're so exagerrated the push credulity. They really emphasise the halflings innocent nature and make them visually distinct from humans (and gnomes). But it might work better if the heads were a dash smaller (less toddler more kindergarten) and feet enlarged slightly.
(bolding mine)
The first quoted sentence is the most signifigent. It's not completely accurate, as we do have some indicators, all of which tell us that they were at least within spitting distance of humans, but that's it. We know they weren't any dumber than that, but not how smart. The bolded text is pure supposition. There's no evidence of that, at all.
Again, the tools only tell us that they weren't too dumb to use those tools. They tell us anything else, because even amongst homo sapiens of the same era, but different regions, tech advancement has varied wildly. There are humans still using very primitive tech, having never advanced in the last 10k years, seemingly, and that's the same species. So, all tool use can give us is a minimum intelligence.
Brain size does not give us an intelligence cap. Therefor, we know they weren't vastly less intelligent than us, we know that at least one part of the brain that is associated with intelligence was the same size as ours, and that's about it. So far as we know, they could have been just as intelligent as us, or moreso.
As far as proportions in general go, I don't like that they're back to being 3ft tall to begin with, I'd be much happier with at least 3' 5" to 3' 7/8" and even happier with 4e height. I also don't like the general silly "this is not someone to take seriously or worry about in a fight" nature of the halfling art.
Those points are far more important to me than the size of thier head. In fact, there's only one image in the set where the head looks truly Pixar movie silly. The others, I'd just want it about 10 to 20 percent smaller in order to be satisfied.
I do agree with this. I think the proportions are more realistic than you'd easily believe, but they're so exagerrated the push credulity. They really emphasise the halflings innocent nature and make them visually distinct from humans (and gnomes). B
in real life.
