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

[Hussar]

How does the level of similarity between gnomes and halflings compare to the level of similarity between humans and half-elves, or do genasi and tieflings? (Especially in a post Tasha world?).

It's not the level of similarity but the significant level of difference in popularity that separates humans and half-elves from halflings and gnomes.

Folding gnomes and halflings together makes the "Core 4" races pretty much even and I'm happy. Sure, humans are the clear winners, but, it puts our new race on par with dwarves and elves for being played, and opens up space for a new race to appear in the PHB. Again, presuming they don't just keep adding more races to the PHB. But, that would resolve my issues with halflings as being largely a waste of space in the PHB.

 

[Faolyn]

first, you assume the will and second you assume they will not only make kitchen skin settings one is not as common as the other.

dragonborn at least can have lore tied to something if you want something fast halflings have no such luck.

Wait, are you now claiming that halflings literally can't be tied to any setting lore? Seriously?

 

[Hussar]

(Also, you're drawing a blank on why a people who work in the agriculture field would want to have spellcasters that specialize in plant and animal magic?)

Yup. That's what nature priests do. Not druids. Druids are the defenders of nature, not farmers who enslave animals, destroy forests, and are all about using nature to feed the greed of civilization. ((Ok, ok, I'm exaggerating here, I know))

But, the point being, it's not about "not being able to think outside the lore box". It's "Well, any good DM can do this, so, there's no problem." If only there was a fallacy named for EXACTLY this sort of thing....

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

kitchen skin

Sorry, I don't mean to make fun, but this is one of the most hilarious typos that I've ever seen. It also sounds absolutely disgusting and horrifying.

 

[Hussar]

Yes. Because those were the existing settings. That's it. Those races are not common in those classic settings because they're core races, they're core races because they're common in the classic settings!


Right. So new setting can be different.


Or they could use their own brain and include what they actually like. And that might be halflings.

But, somewhat missing the point.

If WotC comes out with another original setting - not just recycling - then that new setting MUST include halflings. Because, as presented in the PHB, there is zero chance they will have a new setting that doesn't include one of the 4 most common races. Same as elves and dwarves. But, again, and this has been my main point all the way along, halflings are not very popular as a race. They just aren't. 5.9% of players, and quite possibly less (since later polls seem to indicate that) means that 94% of players DON'T play one at any given time. So, why are they being added to the new setting? Why does the new setting HAVE to include a race that so few players actually play? Because, well, they are presented as one of the four primary races and WotC will always default to the Basic rules when designing anything. They have to. It wouldn't make sense not to.

We've already seen it repeatedly. Every new setting - Darksun, Eberron, whatever - has to have halflings and yet another swing at the bat to try to gain traction among players.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

How does the level of similarity between gnomes and halflings compare to the level of similarity between humans and half-elves, or do genasi and tieflings? (Especially in a post Tasha world?).

I . . . already addressed this. I addressed it, and you ignored it.

Here. This is where I addressed it:

[Halflings] have much less of a defined cultural identity than most other PHB races (I'm excluding any race that depends on humans to exist, because humans are the "jack of all trades" race that can fulfill nearly any cultural theme that you want to give them. So, Tieflings, Half-Orcs, Half-Elves, and the like (Genasi, Aasimar, etc) aren't valid races to criticize for "what about their cultural identity!?!? They're lacking it too!!!"-whataboutisms in an argument that talks about Halflings lacking cultural identity).

In summation; races that rely on Humans for their race to exist (Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Genasi, Tieflings, Aasimar, etc) are not a valid comparison in this situation, because of course their culture will be more or less the same as their parent race(s)! That's like saying, "this Strawberry Ice Cream tastes like Strawberry, but I wanted it to taste like Banana!", and then using that as an excuse to not add any flavor to a different type of ice cream. If something comes from another thing, it is likely to have the same flavor of the thing it's made of.

Tieflings, Aasimar, Genasi, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and other races that depend on the Human race to exist have a valid excuse for not having huge cultural identities (that's kind of part of the drawing aspect of those races). Halflings don't have that excuse.

 

[Don Durito]

But, somewhat missing the point.

If WotC comes out with another original setting - not just recycling - then that new setting MUST include halflings. Because, as presented in the PHB, there is zero chance they will have a new setting that doesn't include one of the 4 most common races. Same as elves and dwarves. But, again, and this has been my main point all the way along, halflings are not very popular as a race. They just aren't. 5.9% of players, and quite possibly less (since later polls seem to indicate that) means that 94% of players DON'T play one at any given time. So, why are they being added to the new setting? Why does the new setting HAVE to include a race that so few players actually play? Because, well, they are presented as one of the four primary races and WotC will always default to the Basic rules when designing anything. They have to. It wouldn't make sense not to.

We've already seen it repeatedly. Every new setting - Darksun, Eberron, whatever - has to have halflings and yet another swing at the bat to try to gain traction among players.

Well I agree that halflings shouldn't be added to new settings just because...

But what about the Magic: the Gathering crossovers? They don't have halflings do they?

On the other hand we saw with 4e that Wizards of the Coast wanted every PHB race in a setting, regardless of the history of that setting. And of course one of the big things with Eberron was that it had everything.

 

[Hussar]

And ultimately people can and should make their own settings anyway.

There's a point I STRONGLY disagree with. Sorry, but Gary Gygax was 100% wrong about that. I've no problems admitting that there are people far more creative than I who will put out fantastic and interesting settings where they do 90% of the grunt work and I can then take and put my individual spin on.

Never minding that making a setting is a HUGE time sink that I very much do not have the time for.

Additionally, I've seen the number 50% floating around for the split between those who use published settings vs home-brew. Considering the amount of effort folks are expending defending an option that is played by about 6% of players, I would think that you would have somewhat more sympathy for the half of gamers that play in published settings.

 

[Cadence]

I . . . already addressed this. I addressed it, and you ignored it.

Here. This is where I addressed it:

In summation; races that rely on Humans for their race to exist (Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Genasi, Tieflings, Aasimar, etc) are not a valid comparison in this situation, because of course their culture will be more or less the same as their parent race(s)! That's like saying, "this Strawberry Ice Cream tastes like Strawberry, but I wanted it to taste like Banana!", and then using that as an excuse to not add any flavor to a different type of ice cream. If something comes from another thing, it is likely to have the same flavor of the thing it's made of.

Tieflings, Aasimar, Genasi, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, and other races that depend on the Human race to exist have a valid excuse for not having huge cultural identities (that's kind of part of the drawing aspect of those races). Halflings don't have that excuse.

Doh! I missed (or forgot) your earlier comment. Thank you for.reposting it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If WotC comes out with another original setting - not just recycling - then that new setting MUST include halflings.

Does it? Apparently many of the MTG settings don't.

We've already seen it repeatedly. Every new setting - Darksun, Eberron, whatever - has to have halflings and yet another swing at the bat to try to gain traction among players.

They have halflings. They also have dwarves. This doesn't mean they had to have them. I'm pretty sure all of them have dragonborn too now. And it's not a swing at anything, they're there because designers wanted them there and people like them. Just like the dwarves which are way more boring but inexplicably some people still like them.