[Varyon]

Originally Posted by CoyoteGestalt

On the original topic, though, I guess one way to look at it: Do we get any impression of whether hobbits are more or less able to carry a comparable number of days of rations, compared to larger folk? They presumably are not, in general, as strong as beings twice their height (though I'd argue for Samwise having a bit of Lifting ST, in both book & film he notably overpacks) - if they need to (as opposed to wanting to) consume as many calories per day as Aragorn or Boromir, then presumably they have to restock twice as often. If they're able to go just as long without stopping for more food, then either they are all much stronger than they look (stronger, as distinct from tougher, which they definitely are), or they're eating less food per day (regardless of however many times they stop to eat it).

We never get a definitive answer, no. In The Hobbit, Bilbo is traveling lightly alongside a group of 13 strong dwarves, meaning they could easily have carried extra weight to make up for him. In Fellowship, the hobbits are only traveling a short distance by themselves, with plenty of land for easy foraging, before they are incorporated into the Fellowship, where like Bilbo their extra loads could easily be shared amongst the strong dwarf, elf, and humans. When Frodo and Sam make off on their own, they are equipped with magically-light lembas bread, and Sam is potentially strong enough to make up for any differences on his own. Gollum, who has probably been changed enough by the Ring to require less food, is a proficient hunter who can rather easily supplement the hobbits' diet with fresh rabbits and fish while feeding himself. When Merry and Pippin get captured, they are forced to share in orc rations (which they don't carry on their own), then stay in one place with plenty of food complements of the Ents, then invade Orthanc, which has large stockpiles of food. When they join back up with Aragorn, he has a full military - and, presumably, baggage train - supporting him, making rations a non-issue for those hobbits.

Originally Posted by Anders

... a D&D kobold would eat much less than a Halfling.

If you're using the lizard-like kobold instead of the furry ones from earlier additions, and you opt to have them be cold-blooded. I personally tend to interpret dragons as being more "primordial mammalian" (the earliest milk-producers were scaled) than reptilian, and associate them more with late dinosaurs than with proper reptiles - in either case, this lends itself to being warm-blooded. As the scaly kobolds are meant to be related to dragons, I'd be inclined to have them be warm-blooded as well.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Well all attacks have an element of surprise in the first few minutes unless the defender knows the exact details beforehand. But the Brandybucks recovered surprisingly well, certainly better then modern suburbanites would have. Fires do however make more sense. Or floods, could the Brandywine be prone to flooding?

I think the hobbits in general react better than modern suburbanites - they're meant to be a hardy folk. I suspect the Brandywine it's very susceptible to dangerous flooding, as that would make the Shire much less idyllic than Tolkien appears to have intended.