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

[FrozenNorth]

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.

She’s arguably more recognizable than the male satyrs.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What we should really do is cut out the subraces. If we're cutting out the ability score bonuses they're somewhat redundant anyway as they mostly exist to spread around that extra point or two. Furthermore, if lots of people are playing non PHB races anyway, then the distinction between Mountain Dwarf and Hill Dwarf or Prairie Elfs and Transitional-Taiga-Tundra-zone Elf becomes even less important.

Honestly there's IME only one PHB subrace that actually matters - the wood elf/high elf split (and arguably drow). This, of course, is why 4e had the Eladrin in the PHB to take the narrative role of high elves, and drow have plummeted in popularity (and frankly are seen as a little embarrassing) since the tieflings became the edgy race.

Other than that and dragonborn getting a different breath type from their dragon ancestor I don't think people care much about the subraces. People want to play rock gnome tinkerers, but not really to play Dr. Doolittle as forest gnomes (and halfling rangers are more popular than gnome ones). Tough halflings are far the less popular type of the two. I'm not even sure what the thematic difference between hill and mountain dwarfs is. And tieflings and half-orcs don't have subtypes.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Case in point: genasi, which seem to be equally popular in pretty much every class.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Case in point: genasi, which seem to be equally popular in pretty much every class.

Part of that may be that their primary stat is constitution, which is everyone's second most important stat. And with four subtypes they have access to four of the five primary stats, giving them everything except charisma. So they have stat synergy with almost everything. Their strongest thematic synergy on the other hand is the sorcerer despite it being one of the only classes they can't get a 16 in their primary attribute off the default array. Which is why their least popular classes are bards and paladins; they have stat synergy with literally everything else and +1 Dex/+2 Con isn't at all bad for a valour/swords bard and neither is +1Str/+2 Con for a paladin.

Or in short they have thematic synergy but only limited stat synergy with one class and stat synergy with almost all other classes.

 

[Gammadoodler]

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?

Aren't elves the evil taller version of gnomes? I mean is it any coincidence the "elves" and "evil" are so few letters apart?

 

[Don Durito]

Case in point: genasi, which seem to be equally popular in pretty much every class.

Part of that may be that their primary stat is constitution, which is everyone's second most important stat. And with four subtypes they have access to four of the five primary stats, giving them everything except charisma. So they have stat synergy with almost everything. Their strongest thematic synergy on the other hand is the sorcerer despite it being one of the only classes they can't get a 16 in their primary attribute off the default array. Which is why their least popular classes are bards and paladins; they have stat synergy with literally everything else and +1 Dex/+2 Con isn't at all bad for a valour/swords bard and neither is +1Str/+2 Con for a paladin.

Or in short they have thematic synergy but only limited stat synergy with one class and stat synergy with almost all other classes.

Yes. In comparing Genasi with Halfings or Half-Orcs we need to take into consideration that they are designed to be able to work with a very wide range of classes and concepts.

This may make them a better designed race, but it muddies the water in regards to the popularity of the concept compared to say a Half-Orc.

Of course even that is somewhat muddy, as the issue with the breadth of Half-Orcs is not just mechanics but also that the basic concept as presented by WotC is very narrow. However, just as basic anecdote, since the changes in Tasha's I've seen a Half-Orc wizard and a Goliath Cleric, with both players saying they wouldn't have done those combinations previously.

 

[Oofta]

It will be interesting to see if Tasha's has an impact on popularity, assuming it's widely adopted. While I do have ... issues ... with being able to swap around ability scores at will it removes a barrier for a lot of people for playing a specific race. Now the secondary abilities and themes matter more.

Personally I have no problem with (random class mix here) a dwarven wizard or halfling paladin pre Tasha's but I know a lot of people base their choice on getting that vaunted +1 to a primary ability score. With that gone so are the barriers.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I think fleshing out different fantasy races really needs to be done at the campaign setting level. To me, the races as presented in the PHB are just a starting point, a rough outline of what that race should be. D&D doesn't have, and I don't think it should have, a default setting world. We get details for some races in splat books, but as an example MToF is specific to FR. If a DM wants to incorporate that into your world, it's fine but they don't have to.

So I've added flavor to the various races in my campaign, but it's all based on how I see the history of my world and how the races fit into that bigger picture. That's difficult to do when the game can be anything from a giant metropolis to a hollowed out post apocalypse world or any other number of themes.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Aren't elves the evil taller version of gnomes? I mean is it any coincidence the "elves" and "evil" are so few letters apart?

no sadly they are not.

It will be interesting to see if Tasha's has an impact on popularity, assuming it's widely adopted. While I do have ... issues ... with being able to swap around ability scores at will it removes a barrier for a lot of people for playing a specific race. Now the secondary abilities and themes matter more.

Personally I have no problem with (random class mix here) a dwarven wizard or halfling paladin pre Tasha's but I know a lot of people base their choice on getting that vaunted +1 to a primary ability score. With that gone so are the barriers.

I would rather all the relevant differences where abilities not stats as abilities gives us something more fun to work with.

I think fleshing out different fantasy races really needs to be done at the campaign setting level. To me, the races as presented in the PHB are just a starting point, a rough outline of what that race should be. D&D doesn't have, and I don't think it should have, a default setting world. We get details for some races in splat books, but as an example MToF is specific to FR. If a DM wants to incorporate that into your world, it's fine but they don't have to.

So I've added flavor to the various races in my campaign, but it's all based on how I see the history of my world and how the races fit into that bigger picture. That's difficult to do when the game can be anything from a giant metropolis to a hollowed out post apocalypse world or any other number of themes.

every edition technically had a different one, 1e was greyhawk, as was 3e and 3.5, 4e had it's own 53 has fr it always had a default, now having a book which fleshes them out more and shows possible interpretations would be interesting and of great use for dm and player.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

People want to play rock gnome tinkerers, but not really to play Dr. Doolittle as forest gnomes.

When I started playing in 3.5 I was uninterested in that edition's take on the gnome as more inventive dwarves.

I personally really enjoyed the 4E take on gnomes, where they were escapees from the fomorian kingdoms of the Feywild with innate powers related to illusion and escaping detection (the Fade Away feat in 5E was the gnome racial power in 4E, btw). There was even an archfey gnome called the Trinket Lord who had a moving tent full of magic items that he obsessively catalogued.

Pathfinder also went the "fey gnomes" route but leaned in even harder, making them creatures that can literally die of boredom through "Bleaching".

The First World, from which the gnomish race originally hails, is a land of wild imaginations and impossibility, where the Eldest of that plane have the power to reshape reality on a whim. Even though our own world has magic and other fantastical wonders, it is nevertheless based on a physical reality that is constant and unchanging. Because of their heritage, gnomes have difficulty coping with and accepting this reality, and must therefore constantly strive to innovate, dream, and take in new experiences. Those who fail to do so become bored and slowly accept our reality, succumbing to a condition only experienced by gnomes: the Bleaching. Those who suffer from this ailment slowly lose all color in their hair and skin, and eventually succumb to dementia or madness, and death.

I've recently gained a new fondness for the deep gnomes as one of the few non-evil groups in the Underdark who survive through trickery, traps, and inherent magic. In my current campaign there's a deep gnome enclave called where the gnomes keep everyone else out with misleading tunnels, hidden pit traps, poison, and earth elemental allies.