new Beor class excluded to the hobbit

[ArahadEketta]

Rodin, whether or not the game prospers or not will have nothing to do with a Hobbit being a lore master or beorning. I've been seeing these "LOTRO is dying" posts for 7 years now.


I really have no issue with a Hobbit being a lore master or champ, but no way do I want a Hobbit to be a Beorning. The thought of a Hobbit turning into a bear is just plain tacky. Can you imagine the roar? More like a meow or shriek. We'd never be able to look the forces of Mordor in the eye again after the laughter.

Not only Hobbits but elves too. Elves are just too uppity to turn into an uncouth bear.

I have seen those posts since SoA Closed Beta back when I stated I was getting a Lifetime sub

[TharbadThief]

*snip* Tolkien was absolutely consistent about hobbits not studying magic, though, so there's no doubt at all. He also tells us definitively that hobbits had never been warlike and that they weren't bloodthirsty: they wouldn't even go hunting for sport, only for food. So that's why no Champions, because that class is all about violence for its own sake, really revelling in it. Hobbits are reluctant to harm others, but Champions are ardent warriors who like a good fight. So it makes no difference that hobbits do some fighting during the course of the book, what matters is why they're fighting (only because they have to) and how they feel about it afterwards.
*snip*

I do have a problem with a Hobbit champion (base class Beserker = warrior for the fun/sport of it) when Hobbits were specifically said to not be warlike and never killing for sport.

Hobbit hunter? Yep have to eat.*snip*

I can fully understand and appreciate why people would not want hobbits to be able to play any martial class *snip*

Maybe not "warlike" but there is at least one occasion that I can remember where hobbits went to war. Approximately 500 hobbit archers fought against the host of Witch-king of Angmar in the battle of Fornost. That is different from defending their own peaceful villages, like when Golfimbul's band of very unpleasant persons came from the north, or during Scouring of the Shire. It is marching onto other lands, knowing what to expect. There is some martial awareness in hobbits, even if most of it is hidden into the childrens fables, somewhere below dragons and were-worms of the Last Desert.

[Radhruin_EU]

Maybe not "warlike" but there is at least one occasion that I can remember where hobbits went to war. Approximately 500 hobbit archers fought against the host of Witch-king of Angmar in the battle of Fornost. That is different from defending their own peaceful villages

But it was still a defensive action, fought to try to save the kingdom and those hobbits were just doing their bit - their duty to the king - by being there. The point stands, hobbits would never fight a war of aggression and they weren't bloodthirsty, hence no Champions because that class is so aggressive in style.

[rodin12]

about bloodthirsty champions today at sambrog I had to defend 2 with the guardian hobbit why could not they but good.Another thing that may be wuarden the hobbits

[cdq1958]

I can fully understand and appreciate why people would not want hobbits to be able to play any martial class - but as I can roll a hobbit guardian, spec them deep into "red" and be able to deal death and misery with a two-handed battle axe, great sword or mattock, that's not a million miles away from the playing style of a "red spec" champ.

True, but I will not be playing such a role. :P

I don't mind the guardian so much, nor am I arguing against guardian specifically from a book lore aspect. Some things really do go too far. Hobbit Champion is too far and a Hobbit 'Beorning = people of his line and people under the rule of his line' is really *way* too far, for me. I am able to put up with a lot of things to have a playable game.

[BangoTwinkletoes]

.... He also tells us definitively that hobbits had never been warlike and that they weren't bloodthirsty: they wouldn't even go hunting for sport, only for food. So that's why no Champions, because that class is all about violence for its own sake, really revelling in it. Hobbits are reluctant to harm others, but Champions are ardent warriors who like a good fight. So it makes no difference that hobbits do some fighting during the course of the book, what matters is why they're fighting (only because they have to) and how they feel about it afterwards. ....

Red line (overpower) Guardian not warlike?

Red line (spear) Wardens not warlike?

Or perhaps a hobbit wielding a great axe and killing a mob with brutal assault is reflecting of how they are "reluctant" to harm others. Maybe those hobbit wardens who group enemies together and battle them down using skills such as war cry, exultation of battle, desolation and then finishes them off with a surety of death is not that warlike either.

Certain that a hobbit that one-shots an enemy from behind with ambush is sorry afterwards...

Now, not that I'm personally in favour of hobbits being skin changers - I'd rather not have that class in the game. However your arguments seem to miss the blindingly obvious.

[Radhruin_EU]

Red line (overpower) Guardian not warlike?

Red line (spear) Wardens not warlike?

Or perhaps a hobbit wielding a great axe and killing a mob with brutal assault is reflecting of how they are "reluctant" to harm others. Maybe those hobbit wardens who group enemies together and battle them down using skills such as war cry, exultation of battle, desolation and then finishes them off with a surety of death is not that warlike either.

Certain that a hobbit that one-shots an enemy from behind with ambush is sorry afterwards...

Now, not that I'm personally in favour of hobbits being skin changers - I'd rather not have that class in the game. However your arguments seem to miss the blindingly obvious.

What's blindingly obvious is that hobbits can't be Champions because the concept of the entire class is wrong for them. The whole thing, not just some bits you've cherry-picked. You know full well Turbine could hardly exclude hobbits from martial classes altogether, and the ones they do get aren't a particularly good fit for them, but that's a far cry from having them being able to play everything.

[BangoTwinkletoes]

What's blindingly obvious is that hobbits can't be Champions because the concept of the entire class is wrong for them. The whole thing, not just some bits you've cherry-picked. You know full well Turbine could hardly exclude hobbits from martial classes altogether, and the ones they do get aren't a particularly good fit for them, but that's a far cry from having them being able to play everything.

Have I mentioned hobbits being able to be any class? No.

Just pointing out that the arguments you've used for hobbits not being any martial / warlike class are invalid because they can already play two martial / warlike classes. Nothing being cherry picked there. Unless of course that's a too obvious an argument for you.

So, just to summarise your point. The entire class is wrong because as a champion I can kill my enemies by attacking them with large heavy weapons. Yet that's exactly what a hobbit guardian does. Hobbit's not being able to dual-wield perhaps? Wait, my hobbit burglar can dual-wield with clubs & maces...

Anyhow, hobbits are not champions by and large because of a design decision made in the long and distant past. Not because of any logic or otherwise, especially when taking into account the HD class changes.

[tamlong]

Radhruin_EU Tolkien put warriors in 4 races allowed them to go to battle with heavy armor 4 races and there was no any race-threatening magicians like it or not, and if living mocking and discriminate against one of the 4 races in lotro are not causes but it's sad that this game can resist equality between the 4 as it happened in the novel tolkien wanted to a few hobbits were to the battle you don't have right to deny it were you like or not, I recognize that there was no hobbits Mage them there was no human as there was no single human beor 1, but Frodo and Sam were the only ones that use lamp Galadriel elven a magic elven object thing any human did not.All classes have the same rights can not make fun of one being more small without waiting that someone answer

Hobbits have dirty smelly feet, that's why they can't be Beorn class. Sam was not a guardian, he never ever wore any heavy armour or carried a shield. He was gardener class who could cook a wee bit. All Hobbits are thieves, Bilbo stole the ring of Gollum, who found it and didn't return it to Sauron. Hobbits are mean and nasty it was Sauron's ring, Frodo should have handed it back to him as he wanted it back and it was his after all. They should have taken it to Michel Delving lost and found so he could come and claimed it. Elves are dentist class, as they originate form the mouth of Alduin. Sam developed chronic arachnophobia when returned to the Shire and died shortly afterwards from a self induced heart attack caused by over re-acting to a wee spider that landed on his pillow. Frodo was moaner class only all he does is whine and complain throughout the entire saga. Did I mention Hobbits have dirty smelly feet and that is the real reason they can't be Beorn?

[Nymphonic]

Hobbits have dirty smelly feet, that's why they can't be Beorn class. Sam was not a guardian, he never ever wore any heavy armour or carried a shield. He was gardener class who could cook a wee bit. All Hobbits are thieves, Bilbo stole the ring of Gollum, who found it and didn't return it to Sauron. Hobbits are mean and nasty it was Sauron's ring, Frodo should have handed it back to him as he wanted it back and it was his after all. They should have taken it to Michel Delving lost and found so he could come and claimed it. Elves are dentist class, as they originate form the mouth of Alduin. Sam developed chronic arachnophobia when returned to the Shire and died shortly afterwards from a self induced heart attack caused by over re-acting to a wee spider that landed on his pillow. Frodo was moaner class only all he does is whine and complain throughout the entire saga. Did I mention Hobbits have dirty smelly feet and that is the real reason they can't be Beorn?

I am literally shaking with laughter as I write this post. I can't even pick the which part has me laughing the most. Michel Delving Lost and Found. ROFL!!!!!!

[CookieArtisan]

Hobbits have dirty smelly feet, that's why they can't be Beorn class. Sam was not a guardian, he never ever wore any heavy armour or carried a shield. He was gardener class who could cook a wee bit. All Hobbits are thieves, Bilbo stole the ring of Gollum, who found it and didn't return it to Sauron. Hobbits are mean and nasty it was Sauron's ring, Frodo should have handed it back to him as he wanted it back and it was his after all. They should have taken it to Michel Delving lost and found so he could come and claimed it. Elves are dentist class, as they originate form the mouth of Alduin. Sam developed chronic arachnophobia when returned to the Shire and died shortly afterwards from a self induced heart attack caused by over re-acting to a wee spider that landed on his pillow. Frodo was moaner class only all he does is whine and complain throughout the entire saga. Did I mention Hobbits have dirty smelly feet and that is the real reason they can't be Beorn?

lolololol, this is from the "win" class, pulled right out of the B-movie archives of Elrond's Library.

[Radhruin_EU]

Have I mentioned hobbits being able to be any class? No.

I didn't say anything about that. I said there was good reason why they need to be at least one martial class, but that doesn't extend to all such classes.

Just pointing out that the arguments you've used for hobbits not being any martial / warlike class are invalid because they can already play two martial / warlike classes.

Not all warriors are particularly warlike, in the sense of liking war and eagerly anticipating fighting but being warlike is exacrly what the Champion's about, the whole concept of the class: they're into it. Regardless of your attempts to drag game mechanics into it, hobbits are meant to be reluctant warriors and the Champion is anything but. Concept vs. characterisation.

Nothing being cherry picked there. Unless of course that's a too obvious an argument for you.

What was entirely obvious was that all you did was talk about the red line, like that was all that mattered, and ignored the differences in what the others are for between the different classes.

So, just to summarise your point. The entire class is wrong because as a champion I can kill my enemies by attacking them with large heavy weapons. Yet that's exactly what a hobbit guardian does. Hobbit's not being able to dual-wield perhaps? Wait, my hobbit burglar can dual-wield with clubs & maces...

That has nothing to do with what I said. The class is wrong for hobbits because of the particular way it's characterised, the attitude it implies.

Anyhow, hobbits are not champions by and large because of a design decision made in the long and distant past. Not because of any logic or otherwise, especially when taking into account the HD class changes.

A design decision based on something from the book, that still stands because it's damn well obvious that hobbits would be utterly unlikely candidates for the role, given who it's inspired by. You're not going to get round that by talking about game mechanics.

[BangoTwinkletoes]

I didn't say anything about that. I said there was good reason why they need to be at least one martial class, but that doesn't extend to all such classes.


Not all warriors are particularly warlike, in the sense of liking war and eagerly anticipating fighting but being warlike is exacrly what the Champion's about, the whole concept of the class: they're into it. Regardless of your attempts to drag game mechanics into it, hobbits are meant to be reluctant warriors and the Champion is anything but. Concept vs. characterisation.


What was entirely obvious was that all you did was talk about the red line, like that was all that mattered, and ignored the differences in what the others are for between the different classes.


That has nothing to do with what I said. The class is wrong for hobbits because of the particular way it's characterised, the attitude it implies.


A design decision based on something from the book, that still stands because it's damn well obvious that hobbits would be utterly unlikely candidates for the role, given who it's inspired by. You're not going to get round that by talking about game mechanics.

Ohhh gooody another multi-quoter. Don't mind if I don't go down that road do you good chap?

Quite simply, the whole concept of hobbits being "reluctant" warriors is trashed by their ability to specialise into aspects of classes that where the approach and play is nothing but reluctant. That's the paradox of your argument. An "overpower" guardian is no more or no less martial than a "berserker" champion.

Now, back in that dim and distant past when the classes were originally designed, guardians were indeed protectors - there was no overpower stance. So there was "clear blue sky" in ethos and design between what a guardian stood for and that of a champion - Guardians were tanks and Champs were AOE melee dps. Nothing to do with "inspired by". You do know that's just some marketing hype don't you?

However, we're not in the class design sessions of SOA. This is 7 years on and the classes have moved on and in many respects the trait trees specialisations have led to those differences being reduced, in the name of gameplay. Hence why what was originally conceived as a protector class can now be built as a single-target dps specialist. Which unsurprisingly is exactly what a champion berserker spec does. No? The same can be said for a warden though perhaps marginally less so as wardens cannot use 2-handed weapons.

Of course those classes have other specialisations. However all three guardian specialisations are underpinned by might and vitality as their primary traits, pitting their great strength, power and resolve to either shield their fellows and absorb massive attacks or to deal death back to their enemies. How far different is that from what a champion does now?

- both wear heavy armour

- both can use 2-handed weapons

- both use might and vitality as their primary stats

- in their "red" specialisation, both make use of big-hitting single target attacks to defeat their foes.

So, the supposition that a hobbit cannot be a champion using the arguments you've provided just fails to stand.

Now, if one were to focus the argument on the champion's "Blade" specialisation and their AOE abilities, then I would agree that a back story could be crafted that supports just the "big folk" having the physical build, strength and power to strike down multiple foes in a single manoeuvre. I'm sure you can find the time to come up with something like that.

[Radhruin_EU]

Ohhh gooody another multi-quoter. Don't mind if I don't go down that road do you good chap?

Oh, I'm so sorry if I ruined the sacred majesty of your post

Quite simply, the whole concept of hobbits being "reluctant" warriors is trashed by their ability to specialise into aspects of classes that where the approach and play is nothing but reluctant. That's the paradox of your argument. An "overpower" guardian is no more or no less martial than a "berserker" champion.

One more time: they had to give hobbits at least one martial class. So they got one that's not really right. Best of a bad job. I've actually said in the past (right from the start) that I don't really approve of hobbit Guardians, but I accept that it was never likely that we'd get a class that'd suit them perfectly. And you're still trying to equate one spec with a whole class, since Champions are still designed very much around the concept of domination by sheer ferocity, i.e. their primary role was and still is damage-dealing. Even now, Guardian is a bit more nuanced than that.

Now, back in that dim and distant past when the classes were originally designed, guardians were indeed protectors - there was no overpower stance. So there was "clear blue sky" in ethos and design between what a guardian stood for and that of a champion - Guardians were tanks and Champs were AOE melee dps. Nothing to do with "inspired by". You do know that's just some marketing hype don't you?

Of course I know that... I've always poured scorn on the idea of Sam as any true inspiration for the Guardian, and likewise for some of the others. But Champion, now: Gimli actually fits that stereotype, he's happiest when he has room to swing and a row of Orc-necks to hew.

However, we're not in the class design sessions of SOA. This is 7 years on and the classes have moved on and in many respects the trait trees specialisations have led to those differences being reduced, in the name of gameplay. Hence why what was originally conceived as a protector class can now be built as a single-target dps specialist. Which unsurprisingly is exactly what a champion berserker spec does. No? The same can be said for a warden though perhaps marginally less so as wardens cannot use 2-handed weapons.

The same argument still holds; I accept that Guardian is now even less suitable for hobbits than it was to start with, but Champion remains an even poorer fit overall. What you're trying to do, focusing attention on just one spec, is exactly the sort of cherry-picking I was referring to,

[BangoTwinkletoes]

Oh, I'm so sorry if I ruined the sacred majesty of your post


One more time: they had to give hobbits at least one martial class. So they got one that's not really right. Best of a bad job. I've actually said in the past (right from the start) that I don't really approve of hobbit Guardians, but I accept that it was never likely that we'd get a class that'd suit them perfectly. And you're still trying to equate one spec with a whole class, since Champions are still designed very much around the concept of domination by sheer ferocity, i.e. their primary role was and still is damage-dealing. Even now, Guardian is a bit more nuanced than that.


Of course I know that... I've always poured scorn on the idea of Sam as any true inspiration for the Guardian, and likewise for some of the others. But Champion, now: Gimli actually fits that stereotype, he's happiest when he has room to swing and a row of Orc-necks to hew.


The same argument still holds; I accept that Guardian is now even less suitable for hobbits than it was to start with, but Champion remains an even poorer fit overall. What you're trying to do, focusing attention on just one spec, is exactly the sort of cherry-picking I was referring to,

Both guardians and champions are might/vitality/heavy armour/heavy weapons fighters that overwhelm their enemies with brute force. Except one sometimes does it with a 1h & heavy shield and the other sometimes dual wielding. A hobbit guardian can stand toe to toe with the greatest enemies in this game, draw their ire and take the heaviest of blows, a hobbit guardian can challenge multiple enemies to fight them and still win, a hobbit guardian can wield the greatest of weapons and unleash brutal assaults. Small, little weaklings aren't they. Next time I take my guardian into a fight I'll remember they're more "nuanced". Ridiculous...

Sometimes if it's huge, has big ears, a trunk and looks like an elephant then chances are it is one. Or perhaps for you it's a zebra...

Still, when we've got shapeshifters running around the landscape on their hobby horses with their pet huorns in tow you'll be safe in the knowledge that hobbits cannot be champions. Guess that you have your lore priorities intact.

[Andlac]

Why does a Hobbit not can Beorn?

[Radhruin_EU]

Both guardians and champions are might/vitality/heavy armour/heavy weapons fighters that overwhelm their enemies with brute force. Except one sometimes does it with a 1h & heavy shield and the other sometimes dual wielding. A hobbit guardian can stand toe to toe with the greatest enemies in this game, draw their ire and take the heaviest of blows, a hobbit guardian can challenge multiple enemies to fight them and still win, a hobbit guardian can wield the greatest of weapons and unleash brutal assaults. Small, little weaklings aren't they. Next time I take my guardian into a fight I'll remember they're more "nuanced". Ridiculous...

Of course it's ridiculous, it's a mainstream MMO. As I mentioned, I've said for years that as a class Guardian was rubbish for hobbits, because having them as tanks never made any sense given how dinky hobbits were. But having that as a fait acoompli (since Joe Gamer insists on playable hobbits and that means having to give them at least one martial class), why should I then accept making things even more ridiculous by accepting hobbit Champions as well, a class which fits them even less well than Guardian does (both then and now)? Two wrongs don't make a right, especially when the second one is even worse than the first.

Still, when we've got shapeshifters running around the landscape on their hobby horses with their pet huorns in tow you'll be safe in the knowledge that hobbits cannot be champions. Guess that you have your lore priorities intact.

I said the hobby-horses were a dreadful idea, back when we first heard about them. I said the pet Huorns were a dreadful idea, when they were announced. I argued endlessly with maradakia and others about playable skin-changers. I'm also saying hobbit Champions would be a dreadful idea. So you can quit your griping.

And you play on Laurelin! Who the heck plays on an RP server and then makes arguments for giving hobbits even more unlikely class choices than the ones they already have?

[Fratonia]

So, just to summarise your point. The entire class is wrong because as a champion I can kill my enemies by attacking them with large heavy weapons. Yet that's exactly what a hobbit guardian does. Hobbit's not being able to dual-wield perhaps? Wait, my hobbit burglar can dual-wield with clubs & maces...

Actually no. Maybe that is what YOUR hobbit guardian does but not everyone plays his characters like you do. A guardian is a protector and the point that a guardian in red can dish out a good amount of damage is just a compromise in my opinion that was implemented to make solo questing easier.

If you have no problem with the (unnecessary) changes that make some aspects of the classes interchangeable - ok, this is your opinion. I certainly don't like these tendencies to create a class/attribute pablum. Nicely defined classes were one of the reasons why I liked this game so much. The class restrictions were/are one believable aspect of this.

[Sapience]

The tone of this thread is becoming increasingly snide and aggressive and trending to less than civil. If it continues we'll end it.

[HeirOfNumenor]

Maybe not "warlike" but there is at least one occasion that I can remember where hobbits went to war. Approximately 500 hobbit archers fought against the host of Witch-king of Angmar in the battle of Fornost. That is different from defending their own peaceful villages, like when Golfimbul's band of very unpleasant persons came from the north, or during Scouring of the Shire. It is marching onto other lands, knowing what to expect. There is some martial awareness in hobbits, even if most of it is hidden into the children's fables, somewhere below dragons and were-worms of the Last Desert.

We have two conflicting entries on this subject - both are possible, but factoring in the UN-warlike nature of Hobbits, I find it more likely that the concept of sending a Hobbit military force to the aid of an ally outside the Shire (even if it is the King) to be more likely to arise from Hobbits "talking big", wanting to feel like they contributed - and thus becoming a (distant and generally forgotten) legend.

"The Shire-folk survived, though war swept over them and most of them fled into hiding. To the help of the king they sent some archers who never returned; and others went also to the battle in which Angmar was overthrown (of which more is said in the annals of the South)."
- LOTR: Return Of The King: Appendix A, sec (iii) ERIADOR, ARNOR, AND THE HEIRS OF ISILDUR, The North-kingdom and the Dunedain p. 1018

"To the last battle at Fornost with the Witch-lord of Angmar they sent some bowmen to the aid of the king, or so they maintained, though no tales of Men record it."
"At no time had Hobbits of any kind been warlike"
- LOTR: Fellowship Of The Ring: Prologue, sec. 1 "Concerning Hobbits", pp. 4-5

Nowhere is the number of archers mentioned, let alone 500. If I have overlooked it, I apologize - where are you getting this number?

[HeirOfNumenor]

Methinks some would like this game to be like EverQuest 2 - all races able to play all classes....but even then what combat classes are playable depends on whether your race is considered good, evil, or neutral.

Sorry. Halflings are NOT allowed to play ShadowKnights, Defilers, Assassins, Necromancers, etc.....High Elves and Dwarves can't play those either.... *sigh*

[welden]

I personally would like to see the Beorning race/class start out at level 1 with an option for level 50. This would allow two story arcs to take place. News of an all out Middle-Earthen War would have undoubtably alrdy spread thru all of Mirkwood and the Beorning lands east of the Misty Mountains. Rangers of the North, Dwarves from the Lonely Mountain and Elves from Rivendell and/or Lothlorien would also have likely sent their representatives to the reigning King of the Beornings, Grimbeorn son of Beorn in search of aid and support.

From a game stand point we could be the volunteers from among the Beornings who wish to travel with the Rangers and Elves and Dwarves to their respective distant lands and offer up whatever help we can render. Those choosing to go with the Elves and/or Dwarves could start at level 50 and work their way to and thru Moria and Lothlorien beyond. Those who choose to go to the aid of the Rangers would start at level one and be lead to Rivendell and then to Bree and the Shire and assist the free peoples there who are alry facing the advancing scouts and war bands of the White Hand.

This could all work with the lore of these times. Now, as far as all Beornings being shapeshifters, well, that might be a stretch since Tolkien did state that only Beorn and his descendents had this ability. However, Beorn may have had brothers/sisters and cousins not directly mentioned by Tolkien and we are told that all of Beorn's kin shared this shapeshifting trait and perhaps not all were killed by the Orcs and perhaps those survivers may have at some point found their way out of their hidding places in the mountains and became part of the local woodsmen tribes who later came under the leadership of Beorn and his descendents.

I would also like to see a random element in playing a Beorning that makes the shapeshifting ability not an absolute quarantee that comes with playing this class. Meaning that the average Beornings or woodsman is just a class of men without the shapeshifting ability, but being a true kin of Beorn - thus a shapeshifter, would be a new race for they are indeed unique to all other races in Middle-Earth.

When a Beorning is first rolled there would only be a certain percent chance of rolling an actual shapeshifter and this would not be imediately known. Only by playing the character for several levels would his or her inherited ability be shown. It would make shapeshifters special, somewhat rare and definitely highly prized. I know I would want one and appreciate it all the more if I was lucky enough to roll one. If not...I would envy those that did.

This is how I would do it I had a say...

Welden

[Witch0King]

Beorning doesn't need a new race. Everyone who came after Beorn were lesser and more like man than bear. Given the fact that we equip light armor should only strenghten that theory

[guguzza71]

Hobbits are a special sort of race much like the Kender were in Dragonlance.

Hobbits don't need to be champions nor skin changers.

I propose that a new class which would be much more in line with the philosophical and sociological outlook of hobbits be added. A class specific to Hobbits and no other race.

It would be a mashup of two things hobbits like..... passive resistance and pies.


Introducing the new hobbit class of PIE THROWER.

Imagine how much fun you could have blinding wargs and goblins with icing in their eyes.
Throw particularly sticky pies to slow or even stop nasty people.
Throw a pie baked with a hollow centre filled with blackbirds which would cause damage over time to an enemy via a thousand beak pecks.
Throw a pie oozing with honey which would attract hungry bears in a few rounds that would lick the enemy to death.
Throw a pie sprinkled with pollen to attract a horde of bees to sting the enemy into sedation.

And that's not all. Every hobbit never leaves home without several hundred handkerchiefs. Imagine what a hobbit could do with so many handkerchiefs?
Heat stress mitigation when they knot the corners and put it on their heads.(my dad taught me this)
A speed buff due to clearer airways.(I use this trick myself)
Greater bag space thanks to being able to tie and wrap handkerchiefs around small items.(my mum taught me this)
Physical mitigation buff thanks to all the folded handkerchiefs secreted in all the pocketses of the hobbits attire.(my bottom is cushioned thanks to handkerchiefs in my trousers back pockets)

I see this new class being a really fun class that only hobbits should be allowed to play. It would make all the other races green with envy. Inspired by Bilbo who was upset when he left home without enough handkerchiefs.

Please consider.

[KielArronax]

Introducing the new hobbit class of PIE THROWER.

Imagine how much fun you could have blinding wargs and goblins with icing in their eyes.
Throw particularly sticky pies to slow or even stop nasty people.
Throw a pie baked with a hollow centre filled with blackbirds which would cause damage over time to an enemy via a thousand beak pecks.
Throw a pie oozing with honey which would attract hungry bears in a few rounds that would lick the enemy to death.
Throw a pie sprinkled with pollen to attract a horde of bees to sting the enemy into sedation.

And that's not all. Every hobbit never leaves home without several hundred handkerchiefs. Imagine what a hobbit could do with so many handkerchiefs?
Heat stress mitigation when they knot the corners and put it on their heads.(my dad taught me this)
A speed buff due to clearer airways.(I use this trick myself)
Greater bag space thanks to being able to tie and wrap handkerchiefs around small items.(my mum taught me this)
Physical mitigation buff thanks to all the folded handkerchiefs secreted in all the pocketses of the hobbits attire.(my bottom is cushioned thanks to handkerchiefs in my trousers back pockets)

I see this new class being a really fun class that only hobbits should be allowed to play. It would make all the other races green with envy. Inspired by Bilbo who was upset when he left home without enough handkerchiefs.

Please consider.

And how many of these hobbits can you fit into a VW Beetle? Might make some interesting quests/activities for the Baggins' B-Day though.