D&D General My Problem(s) With Halflings, and How To Create Engaging/Interesting Fantasy Races

[Cadence]

You mean the high point of that book.

Whether you like it or not (checks the hat in @Whizbang Dustyboots profile pic ) the point was still pretty low.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The primary mechanical benefit of not adventuring is hit point retention.

Also...halflings adventure. A lot. Depending on the world it ranges from “most halflings spend at least part of young adulthood adventuring”, to “most families have at least one living member who has gone on adventures”.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Whether you like it or not (checks the hat in @Whizbang Dustyboots profile pic ) the point was still pretty low.

I’m mostly mad that I laughed at that bad joke!

 

[Vaalingrade]

You mean the high point of that book.

Book contains Goliaths, Devas, shifter, Avengers, Barbarians, Bards, Druids, Invokers, and Sorcerers.

Honestly, looking back calling the gnome a low point might not be as much of an insult as I thought. PHB 2 kind of rocked all over the place.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Book contains Goliaths, Devas, shifter, Avengers, Barbarians, Bards, Druids, Invokers, and Sorcerers.

Honestly, looking back calling the gnome a low point might not be as much of an insult as I thought. PHB 2 kind of rocked all over the place.

Great book. Brought in some of the best things in 4e, including the Gnome, which was the high point of the book.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Still not willing to just read up on it, huh? I’ll give a small spoiler; they do in fact have nations and a long history.

Please just expound on the Hin's history so the back and forth can stop.

 

[Yaarel]

Still not willing to just read up on it, huh? I’ll give a small spoiler; they do in fact have nations and a long history.

Your whole foreground/background concept is irrelevant and arbitrary. It’s fine for your homebrew, but has nothing to do with the published game.

My point is, I am familiar with the Halfling lineage because of their presence in the foreground of the Players Handbook. And I can see that they are too Human. They add nothing salient.

I lack the motivation to read their history.



Personally, I am less into the Dragonborn, heh, mostly because I feel a dragon (= snake) without a tail is WRONG. But I can get into Wildemount Dragonborn that does have a tail and looks like a dragon.

At the same time, the Dragonborn brings something to the setting foreground that the Human lacks. In 4e, the Dragonborn have an impacting history and a salient presence within the Nentir setting. And their ironic trope that knight-versus-dragon is in the Dragonborn the one and same creature, is appealing to me.

It doesnt matter if I like Dragonborn or not, there are clearly many D&D players who do. And the Dragonborn lineage is distinctive enough to add much, beyond what the Human already adds.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It doesnt matter if I like Dragonborn or not, there are clearly many D&D players who do.

Why isn't that enough for halflings? Because they're not Top 5?

 

[Fanaelialae]

When Third Edition was being designed, there was one particular member of the team (I can't remember who) that kept the gnome from being axed. By the time Fourth Edition came around, they were gone, and that was why the gnome got bumped. I'm not sure who brought them back for Fifth Edition.

I don't know who, but iirc they made it a point for 5e that if it had previously been a core race, they wanted it to be core in 5e.

 

[Cadence]

I don't think I ever noticed that the 2e race book series combined Gnomes and Halflings.

I don't know who, but iirc they made it a point for 5e that if it had previously been a core race, they wanted it to be core in 5e.

I'm really not a fan of Dragonborn or Tieflings being core personally, but I think whoever made that decision should be applauded.