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

[lingual]

If you don't like halflings, then don't play one. If you are a DM, u can ban them. No need to try to ban them for everyone else.

 

[Garthanos]

Again, there is this recurring trend of people making an argument to remove tools they dont personally use from the community toolbox. Why does this keep coming up? I may need to make a new thread...

Hmm in 4e a Race was a big thing with a lot of hardware backing it's flavor so when they introduced a new one it took some time for support to be complete, that seems a lot less so in 5e.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

First of all, hob is also the word for a niche in a fireplace for keeping food warm; that is most likely the root word for all the "hob-" names for beings related to the comforts of home (or to disrupting them, in the case of hobgoblins).

And second of all, there's a difference between related and identical. I'm perfectly willing to agree that hobbits are related, in name and concept, to house sprites, but it should be self-evident that they're not identical.

Tolkien was perfectly open that the word hobbit was based on the word rabbit. Which is why the books begins "in a hole in there ground there lived...".

 

[Mind of tempest]

Yes, they do.

in what way?

Again, there is this recurring trend of people making an argument to remove tools they dont personally use from the community toolbox. Why does this keep coming up? I may need to make a new thread...

no one is saying no halflings ever just that they no longer belong in the standard toolbox know as the phb and would do better with being made better or put in the fr supplement or something as for nearing 50 year we have dragged this dead weight around with us and it is a wast of phb page space.

If you don't like halflings, then don't play one. If you are a DM, u can ban them. No need to try to ban them for everyone else.

no one is suggesting banning them this is a matter of why should a race with no lore and little use get to be in the phb if that is a good idea then why not put in the goliath as they lack just as much lore.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

According to this article which gives us the top 5 races in DndBeyond from 2020, neither dwarves nor elves are all that popular either. Guess we might as well get rid of them as well.

Top 5 races:

1. Human
2. Half-Elf
3. Dragonborn
4. Tiefling
5. Half-Orc

It'll be interesting to see if half-elves and half-orcs stayed top-10 once stat bonuses being independent of races fully catches on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

in what way?

no one is saying no halflings ever just that they no longer belong in the standard toolbox know as the phb and would do better with being made better or put in the fr supplement or something as for nearing 50 year we have dragged this dead weight around with us and it is a wast of phb page space.

no one is suggesting banning them this is a matter of why should a race with no lore and little use get to be in the phb if that is a good idea then why not put in the goliath as they lack just as much lore.

Plenty of people complained that the lists of names in Xanathar's were a waste of page space, and plenty of other people disagreed. If you make that call, either way, you're going to upset some folks. Unless there is overwhelming disatisfaction with something, it's usually better to leave it in for those who value and use it.

 

[Cadence]

Plenty of people complained that the lists of names in Xanathar's were a waste of page space, and plenty of other people disagreed. If you make that call, either way, you're going to upset some folks. Unless there is overwhelming disatisfaction with something, it's usually better to leave it in for those who value and use it.

It feels to me that one of the things 5e did right was putting all of the core races ever in the core book. The only changes I might make in that regard are either putting humans first, or putting them all alphabetical, with a disclaimer that your DM should be discussing with everyone what races actually live in each world and where the campaign is going, and to add a few more of the popular races. (So, if it's a historical game or based on some fiction it might have a subset of races, if it's set in mountains, or forests, or cities, or underwater some races might be at distinct disadvantages and not fun to play, or...)

 

[Oofta]

It'll be interesting to see if half-elves and half-orcs stayed top-10 once stat bonuses being independent of races fully catches on.

If that happens widely. I'd also be curious to see trends over time. When were genasi introduced as a playable race? Are they still as popular?

 

[Mind of tempest]

Plenty of people complained that the lists of names in Xanathar's were a waste of page space, and plenty of other people disagreed. If you make that call, either way, you're going to upset some folks. Unless there is overwhelming disatisfaction with something, it's usually better to leave it in for those who value and use it.

then could they at least make them have more setting use than just sort of their guys I hate people including things in setting that do not get any real use no geat history or tales, I hate waste potential more than most things.

It feels to me that one of the things 5e did right was putting all of the core races ever in the core book. The only changes I might make in that regard are either putting humans first, or putting them all alphabetical, with a disclaimer that your DM should be discussing with everyone what races actually live in each world and where the campaign is going, and to add a few more of the popular races. (So, if it's a historical game or based on some fiction it might have a subset of races, if it's set in mountains, or forests, or cities, or underwater some races might be at distinct disadvantages and not fun to play, or...)

I can see this as at least a wise strategy.

If that happens widely. I'd also be curious to see trends over time. When were genasi introduced as a playable race? Are they still as popular?

I am honestly surprised people like genasi as they are badly built and are like the less cool middle child out of the plane touched humans.

 

[Oofta]

I just find this whole thing pointless. One side doesn't like halflings and therefore anyone who likes them is trying to shove a terrible race down their throat and supports keeping them for stupid reasons*. If we took that same logic, we should probably get rid of sorcerer and druid because those classes are also not popular.

I mean, look at genasi. Mechanically? I can see why people want to play them. They have some nice racial benefits, although I'd be curious to see what percentage are fire genasi. But culture? Lore? Pretty threadbare. Ooh, one of your parents boinked a genie. Hope they got their wish!

None of the races has much in-depth lore that is not setting specific. I actually prefer that because as a DM it give me a starting point and leaves a lot of room to build on.

*Yes, yes I know small novella responses have been written on why they're bad, but it really still comes back to "I don't like them so you're playing wrong".