How Hobbit PCs are Handled

[zargon]

Hi, I was wondering how you guys handle Hobbits as a PC class. Since they can only achieve 4th level, they seen to be unsuitable for anything but 1 shots. Do you modify this in any way? Do you simply not use hobbits at all? is there something I am missing that will allow them to grow and develop like other PCs? Or is the Hobbit simply not meant as a serious choice?

I am very new to this site (made my account yesterday) and also rather new to OD&D, even though I've played other versions of the game for years.

Any insightful comments would be most appreciated

[Mushgnome]

Apr 2, 2012 17:12:47 GMT -6 zargon said:

Hi, I was wondering how you guys handle Hobbits as a PC class. Since they can only achieve 4th level, they seen to be unsuitable for anything but 1 shots. Do you modify this in any way? Do you simply not use hobbits at all? is there something I am missing that will allow them to grow and develop like other PCs? Or is the Hobbit simply not meant as a serious choice?

I am very new to this site (made my account yesterday) and also rather new to OD&D, even though I've played other versions of the game for years.

Any insightful comments would be most appreciated

Welcome to the forums!

In my experience, Hobbits can "hang with the big boys" due to their improved saving throws. They will never be the best front-line melee fighters in a high-level campaign, which I think is true to the source material. OD&D was never designed or intended to be a "balanced" game in the modern sense of the word.

If you feel Hobbits are underpowered, then simply allow the Thief class from the Greyhawk supplement. Hobbits are the best thieves in the game, with no level limit. Or drop the 4th level fighter limit; you're the DM.

[zargon]

Thanks A lot! I do like the idea of Hobbits not being a front line fighter. More of a "Bilbo" type. My main concern was that they would become obsolete once the rest of the party hit level 5. I might very well take your advice and have Thieving be an option.

In which case I'll give them a similar class set up to elves.
Hobbits can get 4 levels of thief and 4 levels of fighting man. That seems about right, because by level 8 the campaign will be nearing its end (10th or 12th level being the final word) and the Hobbits increased saves and bonus with slings should just barely keep him relevant.

Some might say that they ought to be able to reach a higher level as thief, but given the source material even Bilbo wasn't a very good "Burglar" in the end.

Thanks a lot for the advice

[Mushgnome]

Halfling thieves became iconic to D&D for very good reason; it is definitely a powerful and appealing race/class combo.

One of our resident DM's, waysoftheearth has created flavorful house-rules for Middle-Earth type Hobbits, check it out here: odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=waysmoria&action=display&thread=5669

Some might argue that Bilbo wasn't even a "thief" at all in the D&D sense. His main strengths as a character are his abilities to read maps, solve riddles, talk his way out of sticky situations, etc. which are not unique to any specific class. One could make a good case that he is an ordinary 0-level character thrust into unusual circumstances.

[zargon]

Also very useful. Thank you once again

[Mushgnome]

By the way, I loved the module your avatar comes from; that's the lost pyramid in the desert with a hidden underground city, right?

[zargon]

You nailed it! its B4 The Lost City. Its actually the campaign I'm planning on running with the od&d rules. I read the module, fell in love with it, and now I'm combing this site (among others) looking for advice. I really dig the avatar as well. He is essentially the end boss.

[coffee]

What you do with hobbits is, you put them in the front rank. Everyone in the second rank can fire arrows over their heads (while they sling stones), and when melee is joined the guys in rank 2 can use spears and such. Or the hobbits can pull back between their larger comrades (nimble little buggers, they are.)

Small can be beautiful, you know.

[waysoftheearth]

According to Greyhawk (if you use supplement I) Hobbits are +3 to hit with slings (see page 68), thus making a 1st level Hobbit more accurate than a 4th to 6th level fighter, and a 4th level Hobbit equal to a 7th to 9th level fighter! Every Hobbit should carry a sling.

If your referee is feeling generous, he might allow Hobbits to fight three abreast where Men could only fight two abreast.

If your referee is truly generous, he might allow that Hobbits are targetted amongst the party half as often as are Men.

Not to mention that Hobbits can weasel through cracks, gaps and holes that Men can't fit through

[cooper]

A 4th level hobbit has the magic saves of an 8th level fighter and the Thac0 with missile weapons that only a 10th level fighter can beat. They can also "blend into the background" according to CHAINMAIL and be hidden in addition to their size benefits in melee.

So, no. I don't think a 4th level halfling becomes useless once the rest of the group gets to 5th level.

[zargon]

Thank you so much to everyone who has been commenting and granting insight. Its amazing how many little tid bits about Hobbits that I've managed to miss! They aren't under powered at all (at least not when you take the right perspective).

I think the main reason they stuck out as weak to me was because of all my experience with later editions... If you were to put a level cap of 4 on a halfling in anything 3rd edition or higher it would render them completely useless. Even if they got tricked out with huge save modifiers and "to hit" bonuses with slings.

This might be one of the reasons I'm starting to turn my back on those newer editions... they seem to inflate everything so much that its dizzying. Players become immensely more potent with every level gained. And a fighter with 18 strength in 3.5 is like a fighter with a +4 magic weapon in OD&D.

Sorry for rambling. Just got me thinking. And I'm new

[Mushgnome]

You're welcome!

I think where the later editions got it wrong is the modern idea of "balance," that all PCs must be equal in power and have equal opportunity to contribute. The two most egregious examples I can think of are the concepts of point-buy for stats and guaranteed-wealth-by-level.

In the early days of the hobby it was pretty much a given that some PCs would be "better" than others; parties would be mixed in level, race, class. The high-level fighter might be involved in every round of combat, while the low-level magic user is waiting for the one perfect moment to launch that sleep spell, and the hobbit is hiding under a bush waiting for the orcs to die so he can loot their corpses.

The emphasis of OD&D is creating a good story, and who wants to read a story where every character is equally important? Psychologically, humans love stories of heroes and underdogs. I think that is the enduring appeal of hobbits.

ps My first-ever D&D character was a red-box-D&D Halfling.

[Deleted]

"once the rest of the party hit level 5"

Every class has a distinct XP table, they are not going to all hit level 5 at once.

Also, when Gary and Dave ran, the party was never all the same level anyway. I'm used to about a 3 to 4 level spread. The idea that everyone must be the same level shocked me the first time I encountered it. However, it does explain some of the hate for undead.

[kesher]

Plus, you could spend some treasure on the creation of specially-articulated armor for the little bugger, so the fighter could pack them into a sphere and "bowl over" their foes...

[Finarvyn]

I find in interesting that Gary didn't seem to anticpate folks actually playing Hobbits. M&M (p.8) says "should any player wish to be one" and thus seems to imply that basically no one wanted to be them in a campaign.

I remember one Mello the Hobbit in Dave's game, but I assume that not many were in Blackmoor, either.

[Sean Michael Kelly]

I'm thinking I want to run a session or two where ALL the PC's are hobbits. :-)

[Stormcrow]

Apr 9, 2012 13:35:44 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I find in interesting that Gary didn't seem to anticpate folks actually playing Hobbits. M&M (p.8) says "should any player wish to be one" and thus seems to imply that basically no one wanted to be them in a campaign.

This is obviously Gary's dislike of Tolkien showing through, as well as his astonishment at his players wanting to play them.

[Mushgnome]

My observation is that a 4th-level Hobbit Fighter is no pansy; with good Constitution and magic weapon/armor, he's tougher than an Ogre, and if Chainmail combat is used, he gains all the benefits of fighting as a Hero.

Maybe Gygax saw Hobbits as a sort of challenge for more experienced role-players who want to play a scrappy underdog?

In one campaign I DM'd in the past, I allowed players of demi-human PC's who reach their level limit to roll up a 2nd PC (or 3rd when that PC reaches max level, etc.). Using LotR as an example, Frodo/Sam/Merry/Pippin could all be controlled by the same player.

[Falconer]

odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=workshop&action=display&thread=2110

[warrioroffrobozz]

Apr 3, 2012 14:39:10 GMT -6 Mushgnome said:

I think where the later editions got it wrong is the modern idea of "balance," that all PCs must be equal in power and have equal opportunity to contribute. The two most egregious examples I can think of are the concepts of point-buy for stats and guaranteed-wealth-by-level.

Balance is one of the problems I have with newer editions too. Why would a person dedicate their entire lives to magic when they can be just as powerful as a man with a big sword?

[James Maliszewski]

Apr 9, 2012 8:38:20 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

The idea that everyone must be the same level shocked me the first time I encountered it.

It has to be a fairly recent (i.e. post-2000) notion, because there was simply no way that a group of characters of different classes would ever be the same level, even given equal XP distribution.

[Mushgnome]

Apr 15, 2012 7:52:54 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

Apr 9, 2012 8:38:20 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

The idea that everyone must be the same level shocked me the first time I encountered it.

I has to be a fairly recent (i.e. post-2000) notion, because there was simply no way that a group of characters of different classes would ever be the same level, even given equal XP distribution.

3rd edition (2000) unified the XP tables and removed racial level and class restrictions. Thus the halfling barbarian 5/sorcerer 6/thief 9 was born!

(edit to say) this isn't all bad; my 3rd edition campaign was memorable! We had a halfling sorcerer who was basically played as an illusionist-thief; I never saw a player get more mileage out of ventriloquism!

[nizrad]

I'd like it if one of my players played a halfling but it seems they don't go for the short with hairy feet look.

[thedegenerateelite]

I have been thinking about adding a Hobbit or Halfling Sheriff class as an option in my games.

You know the boarder watch of the Shire. Sort of a Hobbit Ranger cross I suppose. Prob. no spell abilities though.

Any ideas?

[DungeonDevil]

Apr 9, 2012 13:35:44 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I find in interesting that Gary didn't seem to anticpate folks actually playing Hobbits. M&M (p.8) says "should any player wish to be one" and thus seems to imply that basically no one wanted to be them in a campaign.

I remember one Mello the Hobbit in Dave's game, but I assume that not many were in Blackmoor, either.

Remember that Mello was a giant hobbit at 5'6"!