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

[Bardic Dave]

Honestly? It really, really was. It's just that it got wrapped up in a bunch of other crap and misunderstandings and talking past one another.

Look, I'm not interested in starting a fight. I never really was. I was posting in here because the points I was trying to make were being twisted around so badly. The whole "You only hate halflings" schtick and whatnot. That's why I stepped away from the thread. I was not adding to the conversation, only being a barrier.

I found something that illustrates my point rather well. This image is from the Player's Handbook:

Beautiful pic. One thing you have to hand WotC, they really do know their art.

But, here's my point. Is that a halfling making that map? Or a gnome? Or just a short human? How do you know? This, to me, is just so indicative of how little presence halflings have in the game. I can immediately recognize the dwarf and the elf. The person in the background in white? Maybe an elf or a human, not sure. I think elf, but, I could go either way. But the halfling/gnome/short person making the map? Who knows? And that's the problem in a nutshell. Halflings, because they have been so underutilized in the game for so long, lack any real, clear ... I'm groping for the right word here... image? presence? recognition factor? Whatever it is, they don't have it.

So, yeah, that's pretty much what we (plural) have been saying all the way along. Either use 'em or lose 'em. Pick one. Because, after 50 years of being pretty much the "also ran" race in the PHB, there's certainly room for improvement.

So do you think the portrayal of Halflings in the PHB is a problem or don’t you? Because it sure seems like you do, and that appears to be the contentious issue for most people. Being ok with future lore expansion is not the same as having a problem with the PHB Halfling. Seems the kumbayas may have been premature.

And for your information, that’s a halfling in that painting. I agree they aren’t quite as distinctive as certain other races, but I fail to see why that’s a problem?

edit: for context, my participation in this thread started with me saying I like Halflings as they are currently portrayed and detailing why, and then being told my post was “part of the problem”. That’s a far cry from “all we’re saying is a few more pages in a future book might be nice”!

 

[lingual]

So, yeah, that's pretty much what we (plural) have been saying all the way along. Either use 'em or lose 'em. Pick one. Because, after 50 years of being pretty much the "also ran" race in the PHB, there's certainly room for improvement.

Yeah that's the thing. A lot of players do use them. Why should they have to lose them? Because the "lore" doesn't satisfy a small subset of players who can choose to lose or ban them at their own tables as they wish?

 

[Bardic Dave]

Yeah that's the thing. A lot of players do use them. Why should they have to lose them? Because the "lore" doesn't satisfy a small subset of players who can choose to lose or ban them at their own tables as they wish?

Indeed!
“Nope, our opinions were really that uncontroversial all along!”
proceeds to say a bunch of controversial and highly disputed stuff

 

[Hussar]

Yeah that's the thing. A lot of players do use them. Why should they have to lose them? Because the "lore" doesn't satisfy a small subset of players who can choose to lose or ban them at their own tables as they wish?

See, this, right here, is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

Who said anyone in this thread banned halflings? Has anyone said that? I certainly never said that. I've had halflings (rarely) played at the table. Heck, I've been gaming for the better part of 40 years. I KNOW I've played a halfling at some point in time in there. Heck, why would I bother banning a race that almost no one asks to play. Funny thing is, I did have a halfling in my last campaign. Total group of short arses. 1 kobold, 1 gnome, 1 halfling, 1 tiefling and 1 goliath. So, yeah, I know they do get played. Of COURSE they get played. Good grief, it would be pretty sad if someone could claim they've never seen a halfling played. But, that's the point. I've seen A halfling. Never seen two at the same time. And typically see none.

But, see, here's where we disagree. "A lot of players do use them"? Really? Who? Who are these "a lot" of players? Because, even the highest estimates peg it at about 5%. And there's a fair bit of evidence (the lack of supplements, the lack of anyone actually DOING anything with them, the lack of appearance in published adventures) that no, there really isn't "A lot of players who do use them". At best we have a handful of self selected anecdotes about them being used.

It's not that the lore doesn't satisfy. It's that the race, after fifty years of eating up landscape in the PHB, has utterly failed to gain any real traction. So, either do something with them, or make some room for stuff that actually DOES get played by significant numbers of players.

It's really kinda funny. WotC got absolutely caned for dropping gnomes out of the PHB. Yet, they added Tieflings and Dragonborn. Both of which have proven to be more popular with gamers than gnomes or halflings. So, the precedent is certainly there. Given the races a bit of breathing room and the players base will eat them up.

Not really sure why this is so controversial.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

And for your information, that’s a halfling in that painting. I agree they aren’t quite as distinctive as certain other races, but I fail to see why that’s a problem?
/snip

Prove it.

5e halflings are drawn with oversized heads. That's their biggest distinctive part (granted, one that's almost universally loathed, but, hey, it IS what halflings are supposed to look like in 5e). That woman's head is not particularly oversized. She just looks like a small human. Which is not what a 5e halfling looks like. A 5e halfling looks like this (sorry)

That doesn't look very much like the woman in the image. I mean, proportionally, that's a lot closer to the gnome:

 

[Cadence]

.

Hag's and Dragon's fear were specifically called out as magical in 3e (Su to be exact, which means that while it's magical, it's not affected by anti-magic fields). So, there certainly is a precedence there. Additionally, since the DM is largely forbidden from telling players how their characters feel, barring magical effects, it would be rather strange for this to not be a magical effect.

So if an NPC with proficiency in intimidate wants to scare/worry the PCs into backing down and momentarily stopping pursuit of someone else (and the NPC makes a truly a massive intimidate check), how do you describe what happens to the players? What are their options if they don't want to be intimidated but roll really badly on whatever roll you call for to not be momentarily overawed?

 

[Hussar]

Intimidate does not function against PC's.

/edit to add

Y'know, I thought this was actually part of the 5e ruleset. It's been part of every other edition since social skills were added to the game. Heck, even 1e didn't allow any sort of social skills to affect how the players act. That high Cha paladin had no better chance of convincing the PC's of something than a 3 Cha half orc as far as the rules were concerned.

But, I cannot find a similar line in 5e. That's one good thing about these really lengthy threads. Learn something new every day.

In any case, no, I don't use social skills against the PC's. Do you allow NPC's to stop the PC's from attacking them with a good Persuasion check? Which checks do you allow to work against your PC's?

 

[carkl3000]

Hag's and Dragon's fear were specifically called out as magical in 3e (Su to be exact, which means that while it's magical, it's not affected by anti-magic fields). So, there certainly is a precedence there. Additionally, since the DM is largely forbidden from telling players how their characters feel, barring magical effects, it would be rather strange for this to not be a magical effect. And, as was noted way earlier in the thread, the "Anti-magic Shell" test is largely bogus since it doesn't affect all sorts of things that are obviously magical like dragons being able to fly or darkvision or a warforged being able to move. Heck, I've got an owlfolk character in my current campaign. The character's flight ability must be magical because it certainly isn't natural. Nothing that big and shaped like that could ever get off the ground without magic. Do warforged die if they enter an anti-magic field in your games?

This is addressed in 5e as well, but differently. In 5e there is magic that is a part of the way the world works, (this is like 3e Su) and there is magic caused by spells. The former includes the animating spark of a warforged, dragon flight (if you feel it's necessary to explain the physics which IMO it's not), maybe even Pit Fiend's Fear Aura or dragon's Frightful Presence, or Banshee's Horrifying Visage, etc. but by RAW none of those things are spells that can be dispelled or resisted by magic resistance.

I also just disagree with the idea that magic has to be involved in order to cause a character to involuntarily be frightened. Fear in the real world is very much an involuntary and physiological thing. If someone ahead of me in line at the bank pulls a gun, I didn't just choose to pee my pants.

 

[Cadence]

Intimidate does not function against PC's.

/edit to add

Y'know, I thought this was actually part of the 5e ruleset. It's been part of every other edition since social skills were added to the game. Heck, even 1e didn't allow any sort of social skills to affect how the players act. That high Cha paladin had no better chance of convincing the PC's of something than a 3 Cha half orc as far as the rules were concerned.

But, I cannot find a similar line in 5e. That's one good thing about these really lengthy threads. Learn something new every day.

I couldn't find the rule about that googling around either... but lots of threads where a lot of people thought there was one. (Did 1e have social skills?).

In any case, no, I don't use social skills against the PC's. Do you allow NPC's to stop the PC's from attacking them with a good Persuasion check? Which checks do you allow to work against your PC's?

I'm not sure. I'm not a big fan of the PCs getting gonzo social reactions from NPCs if it doesn't make sense, just because they got a huge social skill roll -- and so probably wouldn't let the PCs auto-succeed either if it wasn't something that made sense in story.

So, no, they're not going to convince the legendary royal gatekeeper to make an exception so they can use the chamber pot no matter how well they roll. But they might very well distract the gatekeeper for a few seconds. So I don't see the NPC getting the party to completely give up the chase, but I can see a good enough NPC roll and failed roll on the part of the party being enough to hold them up a few seconds as they're momentarily startled, letting whoever they're chasing get further away (a mental version of throwing a physical obstacle in their way and them failing the roll to just jump over it).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Heck, I've got an owlfolk character in my current campaign. The character's flight ability must be magical because it certainly isn't natural. Nothing that big and shaped like that could ever get off the ground without magic.

What part of the owl folk do you think is impossible? I could maybe see the wingspan, but unrealistic wingspan is just a ubiquitous fantasy thing. Argentavis magnificens was about 6 feet tall a, and flew just fine.

It only took well over a hundred pages but someone FINALLY sees the point we have been trying to make. That halflings are under utilized and, considering they are one of the "big 4", they should play a more prominent role in material.

No. That isn’t what the person you quoted is saying. No one secretly agrees with you, here, you’re just aggressively misinterpreting someone’s post as some sort of weird gotcha that doesn’t even make any sense. Being one of the core races does not mean they need a “prominent role” in “material”.

That, or, if no one is going to use them, punt them out of the PHB and make room for something that IS going to get used. I'm pretty happy with either one.

People use them, so no.

Several folks in this thread were pretty clear that halflings were the epitomy of perfection and that nothing could possibly be added

Literally not one person has said that.

Because, after 50 years of being pretty much the "also ran" race in the PHB, there's certainly room for improvement.

Except they aren’t that.

Who said anyone in this thread banned halflings?

Certainly not the person you’re quoting, who suggested no such thing. Hyperbole is annoying enough, using it to make false accusations is egregiously o

Because, even the highest estimates peg it at about 5%.

About 6% would be more accurate. 10th most popular out of around 100 races would be more illuminating.

And there's a fair bit of evidence (the lack of supplements, the lack of anyone actually DOING anything with them, the lack of appearance in published adventures) that no, there really isn't "A lot of players who do use them".

None of that is evidence of a lack of people playing them.

It's that the race, after fifty years of eating up landscape in the PHB, has utterly failed to gain any real traction.

You have utterly failed to show that. You just keep saying it like you expect us to just believe.