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

[oreofox]

The Artificer has been reprinted in two different books - and its inclusion in Tasha's (complete with a new subclass) means that it's part of the "extended core". It will probably be in the PHB in the next edition. And the tabaxi and the warforged both just might.

WotC aren't doing the "create and forget" thing so much as the "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" thing. And 5e's basically made up of what stuck in 3.X and 4e

Tasha's is rather new, so we will see if Artificer gets anything added to it subclass or spell-list wise in the next player-facing book. I don't have much confidence in that being true.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Yes, this I definitely support. I have always hated the subraces (imagine how racist that would be if we did the same with the humans, PHB just lists example human cultures as a part of the lore) and they're weirdly specific for generic writeup that should be usable to many setting. Just have more flexible base species and let people use that to create the subgroups.

I find myself saying this more and more often, but I wouldn't mind if D&D took some pages out of the PF2 playbook. In this case in both lore and mechanics.

Ancestries and heritages feel pretty distinct, without feeling (IMHO) "racist", and the ancestry feats help characters lean into what's unique about that ancestry.

A D&D version would probably just need fewer but more impactful versions of these features so that there's less fiddliness in application.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The point is not that the data is meaningless.

I didn’t intend to imply that it was.

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.

All I will say to that is, we must also consider the possibility that these options are popular because they’re iconic, not because they’re the most mechanically powerful. After all, champion fighter and standard human are the most popular race and class, and @BadEye stated multiple times that the subclasses at least stay the same when accounting for people who have everything available purchased. So, I have a hard time accepting without challenge the idea that what is popular is popular due to efficacy.

And as I've been saying throughout it would be ridiculous to cut halflings without cutting the less popular and less thematically identifiable gnomes. And it would be ridiculous to cut both the small races at the same time. The reason half-orcs can be cut fairly easily is that they are not only unpopular but there are other candidates that can rival them for their niche - and indeed are doing so without being in the PHB.

Yeah half-orc I think has value in terms of being mixed race with negative connotations in the past. YMMV, but I know a lot of folks who appreciate the PHB status of such an option.

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.

So we cut down the page count of each race and have 25 races in the PHB. Perhaps even suggest some themes for world building.

Classic: Greyhawk AD&D races
Fallen World: Nentir Vale
Gothic: Ravenloft
Magepunk: Eberron.

While you could probably have fewer subraces, if you ditch elven subraces Drow goes back to full race, for example. Some, like dwarves and gnomes, could be combined, perhaps with a couple “choose this or this” features included. As long as I can play a forest gnome.

See this? This right here? The complete mischaracterization of what I said? This is really, really frustrating.

Please pay attention to context or put me on ignore. I'm sick and tired of having to correct other people's false assumptions over and over again.

I DO NOT CARE IF THERE ARE HALFINGS IN THE GAME!!!!!!!

I think they should go hang out in the monster manual to make room for more interesting concepts.

I DO NOT CARE IF THERE ARE HALFLINGS IN THE GAME!!!!!!

No one ever, ever, remotely takes seriously a statement of indifference from someone who can’t stop talking about the thing they supposedly “don’t care about” and heatedly arguing about it.

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).

Gonna need some evidence in order to take this wild claim seriously. I know you’ll get a lot more fuss from every gnome player I know for ditching forest gnomes than for ditching rock gnomes.

 

[Faolyn]

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

spriggans?

 

[Mind of tempest]

spriggans?

you mean the tree women?

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

I agree with respect to Half-Orcs, but disagree with respect to Halflings. With the exception of Heavy Armor/Str builds, pretty much every build benefits from a bonus to Dex, and for a lot of builds, it is a primary. Con is important, but I disagree that it is less important than Dex (and it is primary for 0 characters).

Where I do believe the comparison is instructive though, is comparing halflings to gnomes. Gnomes are slightly less popular than halflings, despite gnomes’ principal bonus (+2 to Int), being useful to exactly 1 class (2 once artificers came out).

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Sure, and I can see why people might not neccesarily like half-orcs specifically. However, I think it is notable that Half-Orcs fell 0.3% and Goliaths fell 0.6% in popularity. Considering the primary class is the main driver, I'd say that the Half-Orc is probably back to being the top barbarian, and the surge in Goliaths was simply their novelty.

But, before dropping half-orc we need to remember another facet. There is no way that Goliaths are more popular than orcs on the whole. Maybe as a player character race, but Orcs in the game is a guarantee. And a lot of the future of half-orcs truly rests on what happens with Orcs. If they are made a more mainstream player race, then half-orc can be dropped with little trouble, because most people are looking more for orc than half-orc, they just can't play full-blooded orcs (also, orcs suck mechanically in comparison)

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.

I have no problem folding halflings into the overarching race of gnomes. They share a lot of features overall, and I think it would be a good fit in a lot of ways. But it is the centralization that is key though to the data about halfling popularity. How much of their popularity is based in the fact that Rogue is one of the best designed classes in the game, and the halfling is pushed heavily as the choice to play the best rogue? I think if the Rogue were a weaker or less popular class, halflings would be far far less prominent, and that speaks solely to mechanical strength, not the strength or interest in their lore.

 

[Faolyn]

you mean the tree women?

No. Spriggans are little evil gnome dudes who turn into giants.

 

[Mind of tempest]

No. Spriggans are little evil gnome dudes who turn into giants.

where did you get that from? also is that not the evil dwarves?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think if the Rogue were a weaker or less popular class, halflings would be far far less prominent, and that speaks solely to mechanical strength, not the strength or interest in their lore.

I've played a number of halflings and run an all-halfling campaign. They're not more likely to be rogues, IME, than any other race. (There are other races that have historically also been good for rogues.)

Even though it doesn't seem like several people on this thread can wrap their heads around it, but there's a certain chunk of people who just like halflings independent of any issues with their stats or description. Look at how many people like kobolds despite their terrible abilities from Volo's. I think you could also cut away most of elves' special abilities and they'd remain popular. Same with the tiefling fans. At a certain level, for many gamers, it's about playing what they like, stats be damned.