Halfling/Hobbit Languages

[billchamb]

The PHB states that Halfling PC's will start with the following languages: dwarven, elven, gnome, goblin, halfling, common, alignment and orcish.

However, the MM entry says this: halfling, alignment, common, gnome, goblin and orcish.

Is speaking dwarven and elven a special concession just for PC's?

Would you just assume the halfling learned these languages after leaving home, where presumably, they were not in use?

Curious...

[Edit]: I need to just quit posting. The MM makes the distinction that Tallfellows can speak elvish, but Stouts can speak dwarvish. I still wonder why the PHB doesn't seem to make this distinction.

[AxeMental]

IMO the MM is "the source" for halflings and elves esp. concerning weapons bonuses. I tend to give as much as possible to demi-humans.

[foster1941]

I've come to dislike the "3 flavors" of halflings as depicted in AD&D -- hairfeet (human-like), stout (dwarf-like), and tallfellow (elf-like). Everybody always wants to play one of the latter two (or at least a 'mixed blood') because they get infravision and better capability as fighters and other special abilities, but then they roleplay them as if they were hobbits out of Tolkein (which is to say human-like hairfeet) rather than as mini-elves or mini-dwarfs as they should be. If you want to play a hobbit, you should have to play a hobbit and not a mini-dwarf or mini-elf.

Related to this, I think when/if I run another AD&D campaign that I'm going to cut way back on the allowed demi-human subraces, especially those that are unambiguously 'better' -- no mountain dwarfs (who are just like hill dwarfs except with +1 Str), no gray elves (who are just like high elves except with +1 Int), no stout, tallfellow, or mixed-blood halflings, and of course none of the munchy UA races (gray dwarfs, dark elves, deep gnomes). So a dwarf will be a dwarf ("hill dwarf"), a gnome will be a gnome ("surface gnome"), and a halfling will be a halfling ("hairfoot"). For elves I think I'll still allow a choice between high elf, wood elf, and wild elf (grugach), because I think the latter two's drawbacks balance their advantages (wood elves have +1 Str (and better capability as fighters) but -1 Int (and worse capability as m-us); wild elves have +2 Str and a higher move rate but have severely limited class and multiclass eligibility -- the animal friendship and trapmaking abilities that are listed as "innate" in MM2 and UA are redundant to Hunter class abilities (and wild elves can be Hunters) so IMG I've taken those away from wild elves as racial abilities).

[AxeMental]

Foster:
"but then they roleplay them as if they were hobbits out of Tolkein (which is to say human-like hairfeet) rather than as mini-elves or mini-dwarfs as they should be. If you want to play a hobbit, you should have to play a hobbit and not a mini-dwarf or mini-elf".

I might be completely wrong about this, but I thought all halflings looked pretty much the same, just some were slightly stouter, some slightly taller some more average and those distinctions are not that big a deal (they are all still very hobbit looking and any human would just say thats a halfling). Didn't Tolkein make those distinctions in the first place (I thought it was taken right out of LOTR? They still can interbreed, and are the same race, and those are just the genetic characteristics of families (kindda like the Irish... ;D )
I do agree on the infravision thing, but hey thats the rules.

[foster1941]

AxeMental said:

I might be completely wrong about this, but I thought all halflings looked pretty much the same, just some were slightly stouter, some slightly taller some more average and those distinctions are not that big a deal (they are all still very hobbit looking and any human would just say thats a halfling). Didn't Tolkein make those distinctions in the first place (I thought it was taken right out of LOTR? They still can interbreed, and are the same race, and those are just the genetic characteristics of families (kindda like the Irish... ;D )
I do agree on the infravision thing, but hey thats the rules.

You're right as far as Tolkein goes (he called the three groups stoors, fallowhides, and harfoot) and if such 'cultural' differences were also the extent of the difference in D&D I'd be satisfied, but they aren't -- the rules give stouts and tallfellows extra abilities (infravision, etc.) that make them more game-mechanically similar to dwarfs and elves and thus more attractive as characters (especially since, unlike actual dwarfs and elves they have higher level limits than the vanilla-flavored human-equivalent hairfeet). I think giving stout and tallfellow halflings actual game-mechanical differences/advantages over hairfeet was a mistake -- the differences should've remained strictly cultural (kinda like the Irish... ;D ).

[AxeMental]

Foster:
" thus more attractive as characters (especially since, unlike actual dwarfs and elves they have higher level limits than the vanilla-flavored human-equivalent hairfeet)"

After sleeping on this (what a pathetic idiot I am) I agree with you. Although I dig what Master G was trying to do I think he should have given them all infravision of some type. So, from now on if I'm DMing the humanish type (hairfoot was it) will have a min. of 20ft infravision.