forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Foreword:
I like the way Hobbits are portrayed in TOR and I'm not planning on doing any (substantial) changes on them.

That being said, I've some small concerns regarding the Hobbit culture in the game.
I'd just like to share my opinion and know what others think about it:

1) Short sword as a weapon. That's the typical choice for hobbit melee weapon in every game I've seen, but shouldn't it be a dagger? I mean, Sting and the Barrow-blades are human/elf sized daggers, that Hobbits wield as if they were short swords. But the damage they inflict upon human sized foes (orcs, giant spiders,...) should be that of a dagger, isn't it?

2) Short bow. In the Appendixes it is said that The Shire sent a group of archers to help battle Angmar (and that none of them returned), so it's ok to have Hobbit archers. Also there are hunters among them, specially the Fallohides. But once again, is a Hobbit sized Short Bow the same as a Wood-elf Short Bow? In game, they have the same range and damage, but I don't think that's very realistic.

3) Just a minutiae, but don't you think the Hobbits of the Shire that we find in Rhovanion should be a bit different from the "real" Hobbits of the Shire? That is, those who don't walk away from their homes looking for adventure and gold. In my games, just as a sign of it, I decided to give them 2 starting points in Travel (after all, they've crossed half Eriador, the Misty Mountains and probably Mirkwood just to reach Lake-Town!!!). To compensate for this, I reduced their Persuade skill to 1. I think they can be very corteous, right, but I don't figure them able to debate and convince other of their opinions. In this, I consider Bilbo and Frodo exceptions, and not the norm, to Hobbits. As a matter of fact, I see Bilbo's flattering of Smaug and Frodo convincing Faramir of letting him go, more of a Courtesy and Riddle skill than Persuade.
As for the "Real Hobbits of the Shire", I'll wait to see if there's a variation in the Rivendell supplement (like with the Wild Hobbits of the Anduin), but otherwise I would put the starting skill point I took away from Persuade into Craft, instead of Travel. Every settled Hobbit has a decent job (gardener, farmer, shepherd, boatwright, miller,...) and should know something about Craft.

As said, only wanting to hear opinions, not arguing at all .

You make some very good points.

For the short weapons thing I think it really just comes to what you prefer. The combat system is already so loose that i personally don't think it needs the extra level go granularity. It would also essentially mean that there are Hobbit only weapons, especially the bow. I just can't see it mattering enough in the long run to really warrant the addition. Also making Hobbits only usable swords Daggers lowers the effectiveness of the Kings Blade Reward a little, but it is arguably rather powerful as is.

Your points about skills though I find very interesting and actually might use them myself next time I start a game, or at least as an option. Would also help very up the Hobbit is always the face guy role that they currently fall into usually. I would argue that technically the Shire Hobbits could actually be true Shire Hobbits though. The last game I played in for instance I was a Hobbit who, due to hostile market competition in the Shire pipe weed business, was forced to travel. We did a little into adventure which was my Hobbit traveling over the mountain and ultimately was the crux of getting our fellowship together, basically to keep my hobbit from being killed while he tried to make it in the wide world… of and ultimately help people, we did that too. But my point is that in this since the Travel skill wouldn't be warranted if you did want to play a fresh out of the shire Hobbit.

The craft skill is another matter and I can totally see that is a necessity. Especially since almost all Hobbits spend their entire lives, so far, on a craft that they make a living at. Its not like other cultures where you could be a soldier or the like. I would say just about all hobbits are essentially trades men when they start out so should absolutely have a craft. That or an extra Trait that is specifically a Trade of some sort, but that might be a little much.

In my mind, the absolute length of the blade or strength of the bow is not the foremost thing... It is also about accuracy and opportunity. So I'm ok with Hobbits having the same damage values as bigger folk, especially as their Body scores tend to be lower.

As Zed said, plus, a hobbit's stength score of 2-4 is going to really limit their damage compared with the strong races/cultures with body scores of 5-7.

So a Hobbit with a Short Sword on an extraordinary success is going to do like 11 damage, while Bardings, Dwarves, Elves, Beornings will kick out more like 17 (or more) damage.

For the skills, that's your call. If you look into it, you can probably find a number of places in TOR across all Cultures where common skills make sense to be fudged with. I recommend not doing it because of the likelihood that other players will then ask/want to affect similar changes.

Also, if a dagger in the hands of a hobbit is like a short-sword, then a short-sword is probably like a full-sized sword. And why shouldn't hobbits be able to use proportionally full-sized swords?

Bows are trickier. Intuitively it seems that hobbit bows just shouldn't do as much damage as wood-elf bows.

What differentiates a short sword from a long knife is a grey area. In broad terms, we might be safe in assuming that comtemporaries would call a sword that was 5 inches or more shorter than the swords that they and everyone else was using, 'a short sword' (along with some virility reference).

Today, you'll see people designating long knives/long daggers/shorter swords that are 18-25 inches in length as 'short swords'.

Some examples of swords of those lengths are the hauswehre, the katzbalger, the grosse messer, the gladius and the falchion. The celts had long knife/'short sword' similar to the gladius form, but the name escapes me. IMO, for TOR, the short sword form (and real world mirror) falls in the time frame between when the gladius and the falchion were common.

Falenthal wrote: 1) Short sword as a weapon. That's the typical choice for hobbit melee weapon in every game I've seen, but shouldn't it be a dagger? I mean, Sting and the Barrow-blades are human/elf sized daggers, that Hobbits wield as if they were short swords. But the damage they inflict upon human sized foes (orcs, giant spiders,...) should be that of a dagger, isn't it?

I've had similar thoughts as yours and I've thought about changing short swords used by hobbits to mirror the long sword template, i.e., using the dagger stats when used one handed (1h) and using the short sword stats when used two handed (2h).

Falenthal wrote: 2) Short bow. In the Appendixes it is said that The Shire sent a group of archers to help battle Angmar (and that none of them returned),

They probably starved to death.

so it's ok to have Hobbit archers. Also there are hunters among them, specially the Fallohides. But once again, is a Hobbit sized Short Bow the same as a Wood-elf Short Bow? In game, they have the same range and damage, but I don't think that's very realistic.

Good point. Since arrows can go much farther than what is listed, the key word in the Ranged Weapons chart description is effective. I wouldn't change the damage rating, but you're right, the effective long range for a hobbit with a short bow seems a little generous.

Rather than creating a new range category, you could increase the TN by +1 when a hobbit is making a Long Range attack.

Evening wrote: I've had similar thoughts as yours and I've thought about changing short swords used by hobbits to mirror the long sword template, i.e., using the dagger stats when used one handed (1h) and using the short sword stats when used two handed (2h).

I like it conceptually, but for the same reason I gave in my previous post, I'd play it as short sword 1H, and normal sword when used 2h.

Again, the source: "“It would have made only a tiny pocket-knife for a troll, but it was as good as a short sword for the hobbit.” Not as good as a sword, but as good as a short sword. Which means, presumably, that a hobbit would have been able to wield a larger blade. Such as an actual short sword, which might have been "as good as a long sword"...

zedturtle wrote:Hobbits having the same damage values as bigger folk, especially as their Body scores tend to be lower.

I agree in that, and that's the reason I'm NOT going to change anything in the game regarding weapons.

In fact, if I had to house rule something to make Hobbits more "realistic" (at least as I imagine them) in combat, they'll have to use dagger damage ratings with short sword encumbrance (it is like a short sword for them, but a dagger to foes). On the other hand, I'd give them some advantage in combat, like foes not choosing a Hobbit as a target unless all other companions have been selected. Maybe only small sized creatures, like goblins, could choose a Hobbit as a target before a medium sized PC.
Or, to make it easier, Hobbits could have a free Advantage Dice in combat to simulate that no ones pays attention to them, so they can surprise enemies (ask the With King about it...).

But that would be too much ruling for my taste. I prefer to leave it as is.

Falenthal wrote:

zedturtle wrote:Hobbits having the same damage values as bigger folk, especially as their Body scores tend to be lower.

I agree in that, and that's the reason I'm NOT going to change anything in the game regarding weapons.

In fact, if I had to house rule something to make Hobbits more "realistic" (at least as I imagine them) in combat, they'll have to use dagger damage ratings with short sword encumbrance (it is like a short sword for them, but a dagger to foes). On the other hand, I'd give them some advantage in combat, like foes not choosing a Hobbit as a target unless all other companions have been selected. Maybe only small sized creatures, like goblins, could choose a Hobbit as a target before a medium sized PC.
Or, to make it easier, Hobbits could have a free Advantage Dice in combat to simulate that no ones pays attention to them, so they can surprise enemies (ask the With King about it...).

But that would be too much ruling for my taste. I prefer to leave it as is.

Their lower end already hits them with a higher portion of their capacity.
average 22 vs Men averaging 25 or 28, and dwarves 31.