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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Look. You can either use a published setting and take what you get, or if you have super strong opinions about what should or shouldn't be in the setting (like you seem to have) you can make your own and be sure it matches your tastes.

 

[Hussar]

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.

That's why I made a point about "recycling existing settings". You don't have to add halflings to MtG settings because those settings already come pre-marketed without halflings and millions of players know about them. Pulling MtG settings into D&D makes in incredible amount of business sense for D&D. And, the only reason we're seeing it now is because D&D has become popular enough to mix it's peanut butter with Magic The Gathering chocolate. This was unheard of pre-5e. There was no way they were going to pollute the Magic brand with D&D branded stuff because Magic was just so much larger than D&D.

Now? Now D&D has a large enough following that it makes sense to start cross pollinating. Race decisions don't really even factor into it at all. You already have a complete setting that has millions of fans that would lose their collective minds if you started officially adding stuff to the setting that wasn't there.

But, a new setting? Like you say, 4e had every race in the PHB. But, remember, 4e had the most distinct take on halflings in core D&D. They had a distinctive appearance, distinct culture and presentation. So, yeah, of course they got added in. You don't spend all that time and money marketing something and then leaving it on the table. I wonder what the percentages for halfling play was in 4e. They would have had those stats from the online Character builder. Hrmmmm... One sec, gonna go dumpster diving in Google to see if there's any stats about race play in 4e. Would make an interesting talking point either way.

 

[Faolyn]

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))

Were you aware that over the years, people have often had the idea of (and kit/prestige class for) urban/agriculture druids?

Were you aware that Chauntea, goddess of agriculture (not nature), is frequently worshiped by druids? Why would druids worship a god of enslavement and destruction?

Were you aware that the PH specifically calls out the druidic Old Faith of Greyhawk (which is described as the Druidic religion) as being common among farmers?

Were you aware that plant growth is a druid spell, not a general cleric spell, that has a specific use for enhancing harvest yield?

Were you aware that the Complete Book of Druids (from 2e, my seminal edition) has a whole section on druids and farming? And the 2e PH contains the phrase "Druids recognize that all creatures (including humans) need food, shelter, and protection from harm. Hunting, farming, and cutting lumber for homes are logical and necessary parts of the natural cycle."

Were you aware that your personal view on druids is not the only possible view on druids? I just googled "agriculture druid d&d" and the top hit was on someone wanting to play a farming druid.

Also, halflings could be druids starting with 1e Unearthed Arcana, so it definitely seems like that halflings have a long tradition of druidcraft.

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....

If only claiming something was a fallacy actually meant that that thing was actually wrong!

Yes, it is entirely about not being able to think outside the box. So far, you've shown multiple times that you either can't or won't think of things that aren't written out in a canon source.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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

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

IMO, Magic: the Gathering settings don't count as "new settings". Sure, they're new D&D settings (as in new settings to D&D), but that doesn't mean that they're new settings as a whole. Ravnica and Theros both existed before they came to D&D, and they didn't include halflings when released for M:tG, so to just add halflings, dwarves, orcs and other D&D races to the settings when they came to D&D would be changing a large part of the world (it's racial options). Yes, you could mention Strixhaven as possibly being made for both M:tG and D&D in tandem, but that doesn't seem like a valid argument to me, because it's still a M:tG world and meant to be designed that way, and M:tG worlds typically don't have halflings.

WotC is making two completely new D&D 5e settings. I'm willing to bet that if we ever see them, they'll have halflings in them. If they don't, I'm also assuming that they're not just going to leave out halflings and instead do its whole own, new thing and ignore the PHB races (except possibly humans).

That's the difference.

 

[Don Durito]

I think I would have a tendency to interpret Druids in the same way as Hussar.

In 2e druids were nature priests, they were a specialist type of the same class as an example of how to do other specialists. In 5e they are a completely different class and there is a seperate nature domain.

If Druids are priests, rather than something more like Shamans it's hard to see what their particular niche is.

Not saying that's particularly supported by lore or anything. It's just how I have tended to see it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

WotC is making two completely new D&D 5e settings. I'm willing to bet that if we ever see them, they'll have halflings in them.

Probable. Also probable that they have pretty much all the current races, classes and monsters. I strongly feel that limited palette produces thematically stronger settings, but I doubt WoTC designers see things that way.

 

[Don Durito]

IMO, Magic: the Gathering settings don't count as "new settings". Sure, they're new D&D settings (as in new settings to D&D), but that doesn't mean that they're new settings as a whole. Ravnica and Theros both existed before they came to D&D, and they didn't include halflings when released for M:tG, so to just add halflings, dwarves, orcs and other D&D races to the settings when they came to D&D would be changing a large part of the world (it's racial options). Yes, you could mention Strixhaven as possibly being made for both M:tG and D&D in tandem, but that doesn't seem like a valid argument to me, because it's still a M:tG world and meant to be designed that way, and M:tG worlds typically don't have halflings.

WotC is making two completely new D&D 5e settings. I'm willing to bet that if we ever see them, they'll have halflings in them. If they don't, I'm also assuming that they're not just going to leave out halflings and instead do its whole own, new thing and ignore the PHB races (except possibly humans).

That's the difference.

I'd bet they do. But I'd bet they also include Tieflings and Dragonborn even tough they are uncommon.

I'm sceptical that the common/uncommon distinction will carry weight there.

 

[Hussar]

That's a hard nope. Can't find anything. My Google fu has failed. Sigh. Was curious if anyone had done this sort of analysis of the most/least played races for 4e. It would be interesting to see since 4e was probably the first edition to truly integrate all the races it presented (and it presented a LOT of them) into the baseline setting of Nentir Vale. Like it or hate it, you cannot deny that 4e made a pretty strong attempt to fit the races into a tighter presentation.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, it is entirely about not being able to think outside the box. So far, you've shown multiple times that you either can't or won't think of things that aren't written out in a canon source.

Yes, I know. Terribly frustrating isn't it in a conversation about what is canon in the presentation of the game that I refuse to include all my home-brew stuff and talk about all the non-canon or setting specific material. Funny that.

 

[Hussar]

Were you aware that the PH specifically calls out the druidic Old Faith of Greyhawk (which is described as the Druidic religion) as being common among farmers?

Sorry, but, I just read my PHB. Could you cite that? It calls out the Old Faith of Greyhawk, but, there's nothing in my PHB about that being common among farmers. Actually, other than calling out the need for civilization to live in balance with nature, I can see nothing in the PHB Druid writeup that talks about farmers.

But, hey, since you asked. Yes, I was aware of some of the things you said. I just wasn't aware of the stuff that wasn't in the PHB. Could you point me to where it says that?