The Gaming Den

Have you not read The Hobbit? Even someone wearing the One Ring still casts a shadow. Its an actual plot point with Gollum almost catching Bilbo because of it.

Parthenon wrote:Have you not read The Hobbit? Even someone wearing the One Ring still casts a shadow. Its an actual plot point with Gollum almost catching Bilbo because of it.

Getting through Tolkien is a challenge. Remembering it accurately, years later, is a task.

I presume that's the reason I didn't find the idea terribly offensive, then. I knew I'd seen it used somewhere.

How long has it been since the trope of halflings and various short people being childlike and innocent a thing? I was under the impression that contemporary zeitgeist of a race of small people that hang with the taller ones is that the audience want their shorties to be sassy, aggressive, worldly, and take-no-shit. Unless Order of the Stick, Final Fantasy CC and XI, and Dwarf Fortress have been completely misreading the public.

Leress wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:

Looks like rejected artwork for the game Bastion.

Looks like rejected artwork by anyone with a sense of fucking proportion.

It doesn't look 'non-human body types are different,' it just looks incorrect.
And the dagger being held up by her lips (not her teeth) just emphasizes that, particularly since the hilt looks too small for that giant mitten she's got on the end of her arm.

If that is going to be the art direction for 5E D&D I would prefer that they stuck with the WoW rip-off.

I love how artists still know nothing of cube-square laws.

See, when you're 60% as tall, you're typically only 36% as strong, in terms of throwing weight around. Fortunately you only weigh 22% as much, so can dodge, jump, climb, and fall better.

But that extends to weapons, you can use a sword that's 36% the weight of a human one with equal ease, which is about 71% of the length of a human sword (20% bigger in proportion). In that picture, she's holding toys. That's what giants should look like, only with tiny heads and massive jaw-bones.

In short: pixies should use proportionately huge clubs, and titans should use proportionately tiny knives. Most seem to get it the wrong way 'round.



But the big nose? That's exactly what they looked like in Mentzer's books, only with big, bare, hairy feet and a pot belly. Also, they smoked a lot of weed back then.

tussock wrote:I love how artists still know nothing of cube-square laws.

Also, magic missiles don't exist in real life. What's up with that?

codeGlaze wrote: I can see where they MIGHT be coming from. Like a person in a suit that mimics everything behind it perfectly. Except the person is still, you know, physically present and blocking light.

If you looked at someone in thermoptic camo with a light source at their back, the thermoptic camo would have to mimic the background by emitting light. That light would illuminate where the person's shadow would be.

Thermoptic camo is usually imperfect and shimmery so you might see some distortions in the area of the shadow, but you wouldn't see a perfect human shadow with no apparent source.

Halfling art: I don't want to hold this guy responsible for most of the rest of L&L being dumb (this guy's an artist not a writer), but I don't know what he wants here. I can't evaluate whether he's getting the proportions "right" because his style is so cartoony. I can't tell to what degree he thinks photorealistic halflings should have giant heads and tiny feet, and how much is just that his art style is informed Penny Arcade and indie video games.

hogarth wrote:

tussock wrote:I love how artists still know nothing of cube-square laws.

Also, magic missiles don't exist in real life. What's up with that?

No. This time, Tussock is right, and you are wrong. One of the explicit goals of the new Halfling art is to make them "look small" without needing other creatures in the picture for scale. One of the ways to do that is indeed to give larger heads. Feet proportions are irrelevant, Smurfs look small and have big feet, Greys look small and have tiny feet. The head to body proportion is the only part of that which is relevant.

But the proportion of characters to the objects they carry is equally important! Let's look at a picture of a bunch of Smurfs carrying some shit:



Even without the context of other creatures in the picture, those Smurfs look small. Partly this is because they have huge heads, but partly this is because they are carrying baskets that are damn near as big as they are. That makes them look more like ants:

And less like King Kong:



The fact that the weapons the halfling lady is carrying look small for her make her look much bigger than she otherwise would. It's just a failure to understand perspective, which is not something I can understand in a professional artist in the 21st century.

-Username17

You can tell he's gigantic because of his (relatively) tiny hammer.

and because he is also gigantic.

And the fact that his torso is 90% of his body in a superinflated point-down triangle. So the fact that the horn/cup he's holding is bigger than his leg doesn't matter, because so is his hand. That and the hammer size is what lets you know he's a Viking Giant and not a Dwarf.

so the trickster cleric is... a ninja?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:How long has it been since the trope of halflings and various short people being childlike and innocent a thing? I was under the impression that contemporary zeitgeist of a race of small people that hang with the taller ones is that the audience want their shorties to be sassy, aggressive, worldly, and take-no-shit. Unless Order of the Stick, Final Fantasy CC and XI, and Dwarf Fortress have been completely misreading the public.

Since DnD writers started failing at, well, writing. DnD fluff in general is hugely incestous and self-rehashing. Doubly so in an edition that tries to sell itself by making all the grognards feel good. And this means that since straightforwardly copying hobbits is perceived as too risky now, the only alternative is to copy kender/3E halflings (because Athasian and Birthright halflings are too much of edge cases and the latter are really obscure), change and mix some thing with gnomes (that's where "ties to nature" and "affinity with cute animals" come from), add some trivial statements (like "value community") and here's your race.

FrankTrollman wrote:

hogarth wrote:

tussock wrote:I love how artists still know nothing of cube-square laws.

Also, magic missiles don't exist in real life. What's up with that?

No. This time, Tussock is right, and you are wrong. One of the explicit goals of the new Halfling art is to make them "look small" without needing other creatures in the picture for scale. One of the ways to do that is indeed to give larger heads. Feet proportions are irrelevant, Smurfs look small and have big feet, Greys look small and have tiny feet. The head to body proportion is the only part of that which is relevant.

But the proportion of characters to the objects they carry is equally important! Let's look at a picture of a bunch of Smurfs carrying some shit:

[..]

The fact that the weapons the halfling lady is carrying look small for her make her look much bigger than she otherwise would. It's just a failure to understand perspective, which is not something I can understand in a professional artist in the 21st century.

You have some very good points about people holding oversized objects looking smaller, which has little to do with the cube-square law. I don't want my storm giants looking like Charlie-27, thanks.

ModelCitizen wrote:his style is so cartoony.

HE is taking the style of Pathfinder when it came out with its near cartoon/anime looks for the original books, namely Beta. i havent seen art for pathfinder since, but you can notice the lack of spikes on everything at least. also possibly trying to intimate the "child-like nature" buy using cartoony-er images because cartoons are only for children. he obviously never heard that the first cartoons were animated porn drawings showing sex between the characters. he probably still believes rock'n'roll is the devil's music too.

like those before him he is trying to put his mark on D&D as a claim to fame when he is no Larry Elmore, Tony D, etc. he has an incessant need to change things for no reason.

not including the thing above about proportions based on physics as to whether it could support its own weight, he hasnt look at the stuff from the concept of "can this thing even stand?" in regards to bulbous body, and pegs. one artist at WotC should have told him about that. he has the center of gravity high on the halflings and then it is outside of the base's footprint...literally! these damn halflings would be falling over all the time!

OgreBattle wrote:so the trickster cleric is... a ninja?

Quite possibly

It is a damn sight better at being a thief than a rogue is, however. Fuck turning invisible every 10 minutes, you can hide yourself inside or behind illusionary objects 24/7. And just fly away or teleport out as you advance in level. In addition to all the combat-duration buffs that clerics just have (though a lot of them got nerfed to shit in this iteration).

Only down side is you probably can't actually pick locks (or apparently even _find_ traps) since proficiency in thieves tools is a fucking class feature.

I just wanted to mention that I saw a post elsewhere last night saying that Next is going to be terrible because "It's turning out too much like 3E". One of the reasons included was that you apparently can now make a Standard OR Move Action each turn.

If that part is true, then wow, it really is shit in a bucket. But I love how the 4rries have to say that something is like 3E for it to be bad. Because the two words are literally synonimous to them.

D&D Next is going to be terrible because it's terrible and the people involved in putting it together are doing terrible things.

Koumei wrote:you apparently can now make a Standard OR Move Action each turn

What the fucking fuck. If you can only take ONE action, then you don't have "standard actions" and "move actions." You have goddamn "actions". Because you take ONE GODDAMN ACTION on your fucking turn.

Having just one action per turn is fine, I'm not complaining about that (well I could, but it would be a different complaint). But segregating your one action into multiple types is fucked. I mean, at that point, why not have Standard Actions, Move Actions, Attack Actions, Spell Actions, and Skill Actions?

That's the way I saw it on the forum - they were clearly thinking in 3/4E terms still, or maybe pointing specifically at the "It's like a Surprise Round in 3E!" where it's Partial Actions. I imagine they are in fact just calling them "Actions" in Next, the idea being that now it's super simple, and maybe the DM can just let you get some free movement in if it "feels" cinematic!

Oh okay. That's fine, then.

last time I read the playtest document, in D&D Next you had "actions" and "movement". As in you have one "action" and thirty "feet" of "movement".

then attacking or casting a spell costs "an action", while moving five feet costs five "feet of movement".

Other things that are "not an action" but instead cost five "feet of movement":
Standing from prone.
Opening a door.
Moving 2.5 feet through difficult terrain.
Swimming 2.5 feet.

...er, I assume you mean that swimming 5' or moving 5' through difficult terrain costs 10' of movement, and not the other way round?

Yes, thank you. But it hardly matters because the point is you're spending one "foot of movement" to do something other than move one foot.