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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Satyrs have the mythology of being drunken rape monsters. Even if you tone that down a lot to just saying they like a good time, there's always going to be that unpleasant association.

Plus, all satyrs are male, unless you decide to go against the myth (which has become more common as of recent years). While I wouldn't put it past the creators to have no problem including a male-only race, that leads to other issues. One of which is, if you have all-male satyrs, then you kind of have to have all-female nymphs (perhaps using the common trope of saying they're a single species). But even if you ignore the bit about nymphs being tied to a specific tree, stretch of water, etc. (which would make adventuring difficult at best), the myths have them as being blindingly beautiful--which almost certainly would go very, very wrong in early days D&D--and eminently have-sex-with-able (consent not always included, on either side of the equation).

Nowadays, most people refer to them all as "fauns" and have them of both genders. The picture WotC uses from Theros constantly is a hard-partying female satyr, for instance.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In Mythic Odysseys of Theros, there are both Female Satyrs and Male Nymphs. I don't see this as a huge problem, as Centaurs have also had a "Male-Only Species" thing for a long time (even though it wasn't even true to the mythical origins of Centaurs), but there are female centaurs in plenty of fantasy works (Harry Potter, Narnia, D&D, etc).

There are female centaur as far back as BD&D, when they appear in the illustrations for at least one version of Palace of the Silver Princess.

D&D is not beholden to the mythological version of anything, as xvarts, dark elves, dwarves and duergar illustrate.

 

[Hussar]

Halflings are still very much in the top 10 out of over a hundred races. Even if we went by current popularity, they’d still be in the PHB.

I seriously doubt they are. Do you have any evidence to support that? Four years ago, they were pegged at less than 5%. The last stats I saw pegged them as out of the top ten. Do you have any evidence that counters that?

 

[Faolyn]

Nowadays, most people refer to them all as "fauns" and have them of both genders. The picture WotC uses from Theros constantly is a hard-partying female satyr, for instance.

Yeah, I know. I just don't trust that they would have been done well as a default race back in 1e. Obviously, we'll never know for sure.

 

[Hussar]

A quick search online shows that the least popular class is the druid. Let's get rid of that, too; only about 6% of people play one!


And if some race you like "doesn't make the cut"? You'd be fine with it getting tossed?

Again, for the umpteenth time, THIS IS NOT ABOUT MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES. I DO NOT DISLIKE HALFLINGS. I HAVE NO REAL OPINION ABOUT HALFLINGS POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE. Good grief, how many times do you have to keep getting corrected? But, to answer your question, yes, I have zero problems with something getting tossed if it doesn't make the cut. Sure, I'm disappointed that warlords still haven't made any headway in 5e. And, my absolute favorite class, the 3e binder, got murdered behind the barn years ago. But, well, there's not much I can really do about it is there? At the end of the day, it's the same argument - they weren't popular enough to gain enough traction to be included in 5e. For a number of reasons.

But, as far as druids go, let's unpack that shall we? Sure, Druids are bottom of the list. But, not by much. Other than fighters and rogues, all classes fall within similar ranges. And, even fighters and rogues aren't THAT much more popular. Sure, fighters come in at 13% and rogues at 11%, but, since the spread is only 6-13%, that's a pretty even balance.

OTOH, halflings aren't even in the same league. Excluding humans, elves and dwarves are both double digit popularity. Tieflings and Dragonborn are both close to double digit. The spread is far, far greater. And, druids are called out as one of the "core 4" classes. Apples and oranges.

 

[Faolyn]

At the end of the day, it's the same argument - they weren't popular enough to gain enough traction to be included in 5e. For a number of reasons.

They weren't popular enough to get added because very few major things like races and classes get added to the core. But by now, you should realize that far fewer core things ever get taken out. Binders and warlords/marshals were never core in 3x (I've heard of the classes; I have no idea what books they're from), and WotC chucked a lot of things from 4e on principle. Even artificers didn't make it to the core and they're quite popular.

Which is why halflings won't be taken out. Instead, other races will get added in. You might just have to carry a thicker book. Or hopefully 6e will be more digital-friendly so you can leave the heavy book at home when you go elsewhere to play.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I seriously doubt they are. Do you have any evidence to support that? Four years ago, they were pegged at less than 5%. The last stats I saw pegged them as out of the top ten. Do you have any evidence that counters that?

Which stats are you looking at that put them outside the top 10? Because the lowest I've ever seen them place is 11th - and that because D&D Beyond was looking at subrace variation, thus splitting the humans into ordinary and variant humans and elves into high and wood elves.

Are halflings outside the big five? (Human, Half Elf, Elf, Dragonborn, Tiefling) Yes. Can they hold their own in the bottom four (dwarf, halfling, half-orc, gnome)? Also yes. I would strongly question any stats that put them as less than eighth (ahead of gnomes and behind the rest of the PHB races) and they seem to be roughly seventh equal (tied with half orcs).

Oh, and four years ago they weren't pegged at "less than 5%"; they were pegged at 5.9% - and comfortably ahead of gnomes and half orcs. They were behind Genasi at that point - but I haven't seen that repeated.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Again, for the umpteenth time, THIS IS NOT ABOUT MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES. I DO NOT DISLIKE HALFLINGS. I HAVE NO REAL OPINION ABOUT HALFLINGS POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE. Good grief, how many times do you have to keep getting corrected? But, to answer your question, yes, I have zero problems with something getting tossed if it doesn't make the cut. Sure, I'm disappointed that warlords still haven't made any headway in 5e. And, my absolute favorite class, the 3e binder, got murdered behind the barn years ago. But, well, there's not much I can really do about it is there? At the end of the day, it's the same argument - they weren't popular enough to gain enough traction to be included in 5e. For a number of reasons.

But, as far as druids go, let's unpack that shall we? Sure, Druids are bottom of the list. But, not by much. Other than fighters and rogues, all classes fall within similar ranges. And, even fighters and rogues aren't THAT much more popular. Sure, fighters come in at 13% and rogues at 11%, but, since the spread is only 6-13%, that's a pretty even balance.

OTOH, halflings aren't even in the same league. Excluding humans, elves and dwarves are both double digit popularity. Tieflings and Dragonborn are both close to double digit. The spread is far, far greater. And, druids are called out as one of the "core 4" classes. Apples and oranges.

So if we were to take your logic we'd eliminate every single race up to and including dwarves and leave just the big five? (Dwarves haven't been bigger than tieflings and dragonborn for years)

Halflings are not the least popular race in the PHB - that would be gnomes. They don't seem to be the second least popular race in the PHB - that would be half-orcs (although it's close). And if we're eliminating races on the grounds of being a long way from humans then I see absolutely no reason to put the scalpel between halflings and dwarves that doesn't amount to cherry picking.

And if you have no opinion about halflings why are you even bothering to post?

 

[Don Durito]

Which stats are you looking at that put them outside the top 10? Because the lowest I've ever seen them place is 11th - and that because D&D Beyond was looking at subrace variation, thus splitting the humans into ordinary and variant humans and elves into high and wood elves.

Are halflings outside the big five? (Human, Half Elf, Elf, Dragonborn, Tiefling) Yes. Can they hold their own in the bottom four (dwarf, halfling, half-orc, gnome)? Also yes. I would strongly question any stats that put them as less than eighth (ahead of gnomes and behind the rest of the PHB races) and they seem to be roughly seventh equal (tied with half orcs).

Oh, and four years ago they weren't pegged at "less than 5%"; they were pegged at 5.9% - and comfortably ahead of gnomes and half orcs. They were behind Genasi at that point - but I haven't seen that repeated.

And, as I said earlier in the thread, 3rd most popular race for Rogues, which is not surprising given they have aDex bonus and are small.

You can't really evalutate the pre-Tashas races without considering what classes they were designed to be 'Iconic' choices for. That's why Half-Orcs can be considered a success in the same terms. They were less popular than halflings overall, but the most popular choice for Barbarains. Given that they were designed to be Barbarians that would seem like a success.

Now certainly, this method of designing races can and has been questioned (and abandoned), and I don't like it much myself, but it prevails in the periods for which data is available.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah, I know. I just don't trust that they would have been done well as a default race back in 1e. Obviously, we'll never know for sure.

Oh, I don't think they would have ever been a default race, but I also don't think if you sat down at the table in Lake Geneva and said "this is Romeo, my faun swashbuckler" that anyone would have been thrown for a loop like they would have been with, say, tieflings or dragonborn.