TROS Middle Earth: Hobbits

[bergh]

Hi

I have made this PDF if you play hobbits in the middle earth universe with TRoS rules

www.fflr.dk/tabletop/TROS/Hobbits.pdf

[bergh]

ehhh, people please give me a comment and review! just a line or something.

My flaw is that i sometimes don't see the BIG black holes in some of the thing i do, I need other to find them for me.

Anyway should i stop showing what i do in this forum? i was thinking maybe it was not so relevant for alot of people anyway.

[Dain]

Hey Bergh,

You might want to be a little careful with what you have there. That's starting to look high enough quality that the Tolkein people may take notice. They tend to pursue with extreme predudice anything even vaguely similar to copyright infringement. They sued D&D BIG TIME (along with many other copyright holders like those for Elric, Cthulhu, etc,...) and made them remove all references to Hobbits. Apparently changing the name to "halflings" was sufficient back then, but I'm guessing their blood thirst would be much higher now with the increased bankability the movies have added. While I'm sure it's fine to do whatever you want in your own game as long as you don't distribute it, posting it here might possibly get TROS in hot water if the wrong people notice it.

Or I might be totally wrong too. Just an opinion.

As for the actual content, I think hobbits in general tend to be thought of as fairly tough regardless of exact lineage (but not as tough as Dwarves) so the negative ones seem low to me and the negative 2's seem completely off base to me. I don't recall for sure which one, but I think one variation was supposed to be slightly stronger than the rest (Stoors maybe?). The biggest caution I'd raise though is that you've got a ton of bonuses there overall...and balancing the positives with negatives doesn't really make it better in my opinion as all making stuff low to start with does is guarantee low SA prices for getting it high quickly. For game balance I'd severely suggest looking at the races in the book and toning it down a bit if they outpower those. I don't have the books with me, but I think I recall that most races listed have like one or maybe two stats at most with modifiers like that, and I think I recall the modifiers are fairly small on top of that. You've got an overall bonus there of something like +1 times 4 or more stats...that's pretty stiff...especially since spending only 6 SA points on a 2 raises it up to a 4...those initial penalties aren't really that bad...in fact they're kindof a major benefit because the stats you care about start high and the others you can buy up quick and cheap. If you really want to base your hobbits on stats, I'd almost suggest kicking up the SA cost by 2 categories (ie if you want to increase a 2 to a 3, use the cost for increasing from a 4 to a 5) or just put a top limit of 8 instead of 10 or something like that. Of course I'm new here, and all of that may be complete crap, so if someone else has a suggestion go with what they say instead.

Again, I might be totally wrong here too. Just an opinion.

[bergh]

I don't worry about the Tolkien people, i don't make money on anything of it, and as long as there are no money included i don't think they would do anything, most of the stuff i do, is found on various websites.
If i was selling the stuff, i would be worried. but i will take notice of it in the future [what world are we living in these days?]

Hmm, maybe hobbits are a bit tougher then i make them, but i read it as they don't take a sword blow better then they should (size vice), therefor the low toughness in TROS. if im wrong please tell me!

hmmm, i was thinking that i want them to be VERY different from normal humans, but maybe they got to many stat bonus's, i was mostly inspired by the LoTR RPG....

i will quickly just see i i can tweek something....

[Andrew Mure]

I don't recall for sure which one, but I think one variation was supposed to be slightly stronger than the rest (Stoors maybe?).

I believe the hobbit line you're talking of would be the Tooks, they also have the unsavoury reputation for a bit less conservative than your usual Shire dweller. There's mention in 'The Hobbit' of a distant relative of Mr Baggins of Bag End on his Took side of the family called 'Bullroarer' Took, who was considered a giant amongst his kind at the great height 4 foot 8!

[Dain]

Hey Andrew,

Took is a family name (like Baggins), not a "race" of hobbit...that's why I didn't mention them directly. You of course are exactly correct, but I couldn't remember if the Tooks were Stoors, or Fallohides or Harfoots or some combination thereof.

[bergh]

Should the Hobbits only have -1 TO instead of -2 TO?

And should they have a minimum or maximum?

[Dain]

In MY opinion (not that that counts for much) it should be one less than whatever Dwarves get, but no less than what humans get. Gandalf and others remarked on multiple occasions that hobbits seemed to be made of tougher (or sterner) stuff than their appearance would have led them to believe, and many remarked on the amount of physical hardships they could endure (implying it was more than would be expected of normal humans). Now granted, hobbits in general (other than Tooks), would go out of their way to avoid anything OTHER THAN eating, smoking, lounging about, and socializing (no adventures welcome here, thank you), but once forced into a grim situation they always seem to be better equipped to handle physical hardships, starving, cuts, bruises, and abrasions than most humans I know.

Again, just my opinion.

[bergh]

then only -1 TO, im still keeping them worse then humans, but they still got -2 strength....

[Dain]

Hey, your game, your call guy. Just something to keep in mind though, Frodo carried that morgul knife fragment for something like 14 days, and everyone universally agreed that just about anyone would have succombed to it LONG before that. Be careful when you stab a hobbit...they're kind of bad asses in disguise. After all, it was Merry that killed the Witch King (not Eowyn) with the blade of Westernesse specifically enchanted to "unknit the magical sinews that bound him together"...and no blade, though wielded by mightier hands would have dealt him so deadly a blow. As for Eowyn, fantastic warrior, but her blade broke when it passed harmlessly between his cloak and helm, and there was nothing there...her blade didn't do squat (book stuff the movie completely bypassed). Merry got knocked down hard, and forgotten, shrugged it off and burried that blade in from behind as the Witch King was ignoring him, then after suffering the black breath from striking him still managed to walk into the city on his own power, without being carried, and got very far into the city before Gandalf found him (and commented something to the effect of he should have been carried in on everybody's shoulders for what he had done instead of just being overlooked and walking in on his own...and then it goes into the whole "unknit" dialog mentioned above). Hobbits are a whole lot tougher than they act and look! But again, your game, your call.

Now, given all the above, appologies to Tolkein fanatics that I'm sure are going to find exception with what I've said above. Controversial subject I'm sure I'm going to be berated for and then told how "full of s*%t" I am.

[bergh]

yes its my game, BUT i was asking on the forum, becouse i also want some game balance put into playing a hobbit, something im not very good at. and you have convinced me that there are more to hobbits then the eye see!

[Dain]

Funny you should mention that. Over and over again in the books people make comments to the effect of "there's more than meets the eyes to these hobbits". Gandalf was the only one smart enough to go in for hobbit lore. Everyone else kindof ignored the cute, fuzzy, unthreating looking little things. If they'd have checked their lineage they would have seen hobbits claim to go back to the early days of the world, and feel more akin to the first line of men than anything else...and the first line of men were real bad asses...over time the bloodlines kindof thined out and weakened. The Rohirim were one of the few races that remained fairly true in blood, and were supposed to be considerably more competant than the beggerly villages they were displayed as in the movie. They were kindof described as golden haired great and powerful men, kindof reminding me of Vikings...but then again that's my own interpretation there and might be considerably off from other people's interpretations. I think the movie did mention that the King of Rohan did discuss with Merry lineage a bit and was interested in hearing about their lineage to see if there was a common point far back in history (after which Gandalf laughingly warned the King not to ask a Hobbit about such things unless you wanted days upon days of earfuls as lineage is a favored Hobbit topic).

[Turin]

Agreed Hobbits are tougher for their size than men.

But I would still go with the -1 to toughness, and have health and will receive +2 bonuses.

IMO toughness translated directly in game terms is how much damage a blow does - and being small (1/2 man size), hobbits will have a lower toughness, as it would be easier to cut of an arm, etc. etc.

But the can handle the wound better, so health as it relates to healing and bloodloss would be more accurate, and their willpower may be best represented as being higher, being able to walk off pain and shock, as well as Frodo's ability to deal with the ring.

[bergh]

+2 will and health, would that not make them super creatures in TRoS?

[ZenDog]

kindof reminding me of Vikings...

Saxons or Teutons, or one of the Germanic peoples anyway.

The Rohhirrim were essentially Tolkien's ancestors fictionalised. His familly were given the name Tolkien after a battle with the Turks outside the gates of Constantinople, I think it means foolhardy charge.

Anyway I would have trouble stating hobbits is tough, I can't decide if their hardiness is best represented with a + to TO, EN, or HT.