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

[doctorbadwolf]

It was 9 out of the 12 races that are free to create on D&DBeyond in 2017. I’m not sure it is a meaningful conparison to compare a race that is free to play with one you have to pay for.

I think BadEye (former head of DDB) said several times that the stats they showed mostly held up even when looking at people who purchased other books than the PHB, but it’s possible I’m conflating a statement about classes and subclasses with a broader statement. I’m not going to go digging to find out.

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?

Your claims here are false, so I hardly take seriously your request for sources. They were at 5.9, in spite of being not well suited for 2 out of the 4 core classes, and having no synergy with a third. If anything, we should be talking about how to make the PHB races actually be decent at each PHB class.

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.

Exactly, when you combine the subraces in that dataset, Halflings are, IIRC, 9th? Hell, even 11th would still be PHB material.

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.

Yeah “basically 6%” would be more accurate than “less than 5%”, but even if they’d been at 5%, that is a huge chunk of the player base. Ignoring 5%, when there are something 100 actively used races, most of those with 1% or more of characters, would be ridiculously foolish.

You can't really evalutate the pre-Tashas races without considering what classes they were designed to be 'Iconic' choices for.

I’m not sure I completely agree. I think it’s gotta be taken into consideration, but we can still look at the data and have useful conversations about it. But yeah, Halflings are crazy popular for the 1 PHB class they excel at. They’re also solid monks, and can be good TWF Rangers and are underrated archer rangers and Paladins.

I think the 5E Oz route, with halflings being traders and merchants, is a good niche for them. None of the other main D&D races have that as their thing (outside of a certain group in Planescape) and it fits well with what's already established about halflings. It gives them a way to connect to other groups in D&D and also sets up scenarios where they would need adventurers, both inside and outside their community, to help protect them from bandits and raiders.

This isn't major surgery -- literally just insert the word "merchant" into their description in a few places, and we're all set.

Harder is fixing their terrible PHB artwork ...

Yeah I agree, even as someone who doesn’t think they need any boost. It’s a fun niche for them, and it’s within the general concept as it is. The PHB already mentions that some of them are nomadic.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Warlords were core in 4e. So, yes, things get taken out of core.

Binders? Sure, they got mugged by warlocks. I understand that.

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)

I'm sorry, I thought this was a thread about halflings. All this "Well Whaddabout" stuff is just smoke and mirrors.

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.

Again, thread about halflings. I have zero problems with 6e saying, "Whelp, we tried with these races, but, they don't really get played, and they don't really add anything to the game BECAUSE they aren't getting played. Let's try something new". You seem to think that because I would cut halfings and send them to the Monster Manual that I wouldn't do it for other races. It's not an either/or situation. I have zero problems applying the logic to anything in the game.

You guys are the ones trying to paint this as, "Well, you just don't like halflings, that why you want them gone". It's getting rather tiresome being accused of a bunch of stuff that really isn't germane to the point.

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

Sigh. Context matters. You and others keep trying to paint this as a bunch of "halfling haters" trying to boot halflings. In my case, nothing could be further from the truth. I've been accused repeatedly of hating halfllings. I honestly could not care less if halflings are in the game or not because they play virtually no role at my table. In the past ten years, I've seen maybe one halfling character. Removing halfings from the game would have zero impact. But, I don't want them removed. I recognize that some people (a TINY minority - 95% of people DON'T) play them, so, move them over to the Monster Manual with playable stats, same as a bunch of other races that aren't really popular enough to get put in the PHB, but, people still play them.

Then, we'll add some races that actually gain traction. All I know is, keeping the same races in the PHB has meant that the PHB becomes less and less relevant as the edition continues. My current group is playing exactly one (Tiefling) PHB race character out of 5 PC's. No, I'm sorry, I tell a lie. We just added a Dragonborn character after losing the half-orc character's player to real life stuff.

It would be really, really interesting to see how these numbers track over time. I wish we could see that. Hey, maybe I'm totally off base here and some races are far more popular than they seem to be. That could easily possibly be. OTOH, it could just as easily be that various races have been buried under the veritable tsunami of new players out there that have joined the hobby in the past five years.

 

[Hussar]

You know what I've noticed? This thread has a two-part title, but a lot more emphasis in the posts has gone to the "My Problems with Halflings" side and not nearly enough on the "How to Create Engaging Interesting Fantasy Races" side. Anyone have any ideas on that score? Because I think feelings vis a vis halflings have been thoroughly covered.

Yeah, sorry about that. I got sucked back in because my name kept coming up. I've pretty much said my piece and I'm certainly not going to convince anyone. I'll try being more positive from now on.

 

[Hussar]

I think warforged could merit a generic PHB foothold by opening up their description to also applying to animated statues, golems, and other such robot-adjacent fantasy staples.

My choice for the "Future PHB" roster would be...
1. Human
2. Elf
3. Dwarf
4. Halfling
5. Gnome
6. Orc
7. Warforged
8. Planetouched (genasi, tiefling, aasimir)
9. Dragonborn
10. Rules for half-X characters (like multiclassing)

Part of my ideal redesign is then rebalancing the choices so that they all are roughly comparable in benefits gained.

Oooh, I like this game. Can I play?

My choices for the "Future PHB" roster would be...
1. Human
2. Elf
3. Dwarf
4. Tiefling
5. Dragonborn
6. An anthropomorphic animal race that lets you pick and choose whatever base animal you wish - so cat people, dog people, fox people, whatever - possibly some sort of "spirit folk" concept
7. Warforged
8. Goliath/Minotaur/something big and beefy - orc is possible too.
9. Planetouched - again a more generic template like the Anthro race above that lets you create the race a la carte
10. Something small. Although, to be fair, the Anthro template race could cover that too, but, I do think that gnomes as the sort of steampunk (magictech, whatever you want to call it) race do really work. So, gnomes.

A mix of old and new. And, a few years later, if any of those options are failing to gain traction, they get the cut in favor of whatever is.

 

[Don Durito]

I’m not sure I completely agree. I think it’s gotta be taken into consideration, but we can still look at the data and have useful conversations about it. But yeah, Halflings are crazy popular for the 1 PHB class they excel at. They’re also solid monks, and can be good TWF Rangers and are underrated archer rangers and Paladins.

The point is not that the data is meaningless. If there were a lot of Half-Orc Wizards despite the fact that they are completely lacking in synerygy it would have been a sign that they were extremly popular.

The point is that the data is muddied somewhat and that needs to be taken into account, and it is not just overall popularity that we need to consider.

 

[pemerton]

@Hussar

I'm one of the critics of Halflings - in my case, on literary grounds.

But I think your criticism is missing the point of the PHB. The PHB doesn't just present players with options. It also presents "the brand" of D&D. And even if not many players want to play Halflings, I think their place as an element of "the brand" is sufficiently secure that they will not be removed anytime soon.

 

[Faolyn]

Warlords were core in 4e. So, yes, things get taken out of core.

I said far fewer. I also said a lot of 4e influences was removed. and for all you know, it’ll get out back in next edition—like monks, barbarians, and half-orcs were in 3rd, after being removed in 2nd.

 

[Mind of tempest]

As gnomes are my favorite race this honestly bums me out to the point that I often end up playing gnomes even after considering a different race just to give them some love. Forest gnomes appeal to me as fey-adjacent (the Fade Away and Fey Touched feats are nice for them), and the svirfneblin have interesting lore in the form of being the more serious, gallows-humor gnome variety (plus Svirfneblin magic is amazing, especially on an Abjurer). I think I might make my next character some kind of svirfneblin assassin or gloom stalker.

Halflings honestly don't do much for me. I want to like them, but they don't have the cool magic-tinged angle the forest and deep gnomes have. I do at least have a halfling wererat NPC in my current campaign whose Bravery trait I've decided partially counteracts the skittishness that wererat lycanthropy usually enourages.

have to ask if an evil version of gnomes was made what would it be like?

As of 2019? No. The half-orc fell from 5.0% to 4.7% while the goliath fell from 4.5% to 3.9% Both basically got diluted. I don't know any more recent data than that.

It's worth remembering that when 4e was published they dropped two races out of the PHB to the PHB2. Gnomes were one and I remember people complaining; half-orcs were the other and I don't remember any objections. (4e also added two races to the PHB and dragonborn and tieflings aren't going anywhere) People want a meatball race - but few people want half-orcs in specific.

800 for the bard, 551 for the monk. The gnome and half-orc were both also extremely centralised (with the half orc being more than 50% fighters or barbarians) and as I've said repeatedly gnomes and halflings between them make a full slot.

so some big and bulky is necessary but no one has had the real spark to own that spot?

 

[Hussar]

@Hussar

I'm one of the critics of Halflings - in my case, on literary grounds.

But I think your criticism is missing the point of the PHB. The PHB doesn't just present players with options. It also presents "the brand" of D&D. And even if not many players want to play Halflings, I think their place as an element of "the brand" is sufficiently secure that they will not be removed anytime soon.

Ok, let's examine that a bit shall we?

I just did a quick search of my Candlekeep Adventures book (yes, I perused an anyflip page). The world "Halfling" does not appear anywhere in the book - Dwarf 21 . Waterdeep Dragon Heist, Halflings appears 18 times (Dwarf: 30 I can't really search elf since it won't let me do whole word searches). Hoard of the Dragon Queen: 2 times, Dwarf 5. Baldur's Gate Descent into Avernus: 7, dwarf 8. Curse of Strahd: Halfling 0, Dwarf 4. Ghosts of Saltmarsh: Halfling: 8, dwarf: 9. Dungeon of the Mad Mage: halfling 8, dwarf 66 O.O (heh, edit to add - searched dwarves too and came up with 54 more mentions.)

Is that really an element of "the brand" when it appears virtually nowhere? This was the point made earlier about the "lack of lore". Not only are halflings being overlooked by most players, but, they are being overlooked by content creators too. At best, halfings are ignored as much as dwarves. At worst, they are non-existent while dwarves appear in every single WotC adventure.

 

[Don Durito]

have to ask if an evil version of gnomes was made what would it be like?

so some big and bulky is necessary but no one has had the real spark to own that spot?

I would personally prefer Goliaths, but I suspect that a well designed and not overly pigeon-holed Orc (not half-orc) design could hold that spot, especially if it came along with good and much improved Orc lore.

Nothing else is going to have the recognition and cultural cache.