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

[Hussar]

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.

But, why wouldn't they include the two most played races? I mean Tieflings and Dragonborn are apparently very popular options with players, so, it would be weird not to see them in the new setting, despite being called out as uncommon in the PHB.

See, because the whole common/uncommon thing does have an additional effect. If I sit down at your table and pull out a halfling character sheet, I can be pretty sure that it won't raise so much as an eyebrow. But, I'm supposed to ask you before even considering to play a dragonborn or a tiefling and apparently, those races are often not included in people's home-brew settings. There are several people in this thread who've claimed that they don't include them.

((And, before anyone says it, NO I DO NOT EXCLUDE HALFLINGS. Heck, I don't exclude anything. I will rewrite my entire setting if I have to to allow you to play the race you bring to the table. Currently, my campaign consists of a dream being of an aboleth (whose race name I forget), an owl folk, a war forged, a dragonborn and a tiefling. It's kinda funny that the tiefling has become the party face because he's the least weird being in the group ))

Imagine what the numbers would look like if we stripped out the whole common/uncommon thing and included, say, dragonborn in the Basic rules. Do you really think the halfling numbers would stay the same? IMO, the halfling numbers are as high as they are because of the privileged position halflings are given. Take away that, and they'll pretty much vanish from the game.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Isn't Goldenfields in FR a big farming place full of druids?

 

[Don Durito]

But, why wouldn't they include the two most played races? I mean Tieflings and Dragonborn are apparently very popular options with players, so, it would be weird not to see them in the new setting, despite being called out as uncommon in the PHB.

See, because the whole common/uncommon thing does have an additional effect. If I sit down at your table and pull out a halfling character sheet, I can be pretty sure that it won't raise so much as an eyebrow. But, I'm supposed to ask you before even considering to play a dragonborn or a tiefling and apparently, those races are often not included in people's home-brew settings. There are several people in this thread who've claimed that they don't include them.

((And, before anyone says it, NO I DO NOT EXCLUDE HALFLINGS. Heck, I don't exclude anything. I will rewrite my entire setting if I have to to allow you to play the race you bring to the table. Currently, my campaign consists of a dream being of an aboleth (whose race name I forget), an owl folk, a war forged, a dragonborn and a tiefling. It's kinda funny that the tiefling has become the party face because he's the least weird being in the group ))

Imagine what the numbers would look like if we stripped out the whole common/uncommon thing and included, say, dragonborn in the Basic rules. Do you really think the halfling numbers would stay the same? IMO, the halfling numbers are as high as they are because of the privileged position halflings are given. Take away that, and they'll pretty much vanish from the game.

If you pull out any charcacter sheet for a race that we haven't discussed is present in the setting it would raise an eyebrow.

My last game didn't have halflings

 

[Cadence]

But, why wouldn't they include the two most played races? I mean Tieflings and Dragonborn are apparently very popular options with players, so, it would be weird not to see them in the new setting, despite being called out as uncommon in the PHB.

Because they might not fit the idea of the campaign world? Does requiring some races innately limit creativity?

See, because the whole common/uncommon thing does have an additional effect. If I sit down at your table and pull out a halfling character sheet, I can be pretty sure that it won't raise so much as an eyebrow.

Was there no session 0?

Imagine what the numbers would look like if we stripped out the whole common/uncommon thing

Sounds great. And add more races and put on a note how many worlds won't have all races so talk to the DM about what the world is like.

and included, say, dragonborn in the Basic rules. Do you really think the halfling numbers would stay the same? IMO, the halfling numbers are as high as they are because of the privileged position halflings are given. Take away that, and they'll pretty much vanish from the game.

;tldr I just act like I loathe halflings, but really it's more that I just despise them ;-)

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Under "Druids and the Gods" sidebar in the Druids section.

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?

Chauntea | Forgotten Realms Wiki | Fandom (under worshipers)

Also, the Complete Book of Druids, which you can find yourself, and you can google the people online yourself.

Suffice it to say, the anti-civilization druid is but one type of druid. Halfling druids who decide to build a town of sod houses via magic is a perfectly acceptable way to have druids.

 

[Don Durito]

I'm kind of curious.

I can see DMs who are happy to restrict any races on the grounds of thematic appropriateness
I can also see DMs who feel that if it's in the PHB it must be available for players.
I can also see DMs who really don't like Tieflings and Dragonborn because they're not traditional.

I can't really see many DMs taking the specific Common/Uncommon distinction particularly seriously. Even Half-Elves are uncommon.

And whatever the reason for it, the fact that WotC are publishing setting books in which the list of available races is different is promoting and normalising the idea that D&D may be a game in which you can play different races, but which one's are available are somewhat up for grabs from setting to setting.

Which to my mind is all to the good. Death to Dwarves!.

The PHB division is a relic of 2014. The past is a foreign country an' all that.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Then why do you demand on two sources of info on halfling villages for standard, PH halflings when we are discussing them and not setting-specific halflings? What's canon in the Realms isn't canon in Eberron, and vice versa, so there's no point in asking for anything outside the PH.

 

[Faolyn]

((And, before anyone says it, NO I DO NOT EXCLUDE HALFLINGS. Heck, I don't exclude anything. I will rewrite my entire setting if I have to to allow you to play the race you bring to the table.

But do you actively go out of your way to include them?

Do you think of their niche or what roles they play? Do you come up with halfling villages and towns and cities and place them around? Do you have important NPC halflings doing important things? And then, do you make sure the PCs know about these things?

 

[pemerton]

In AD&D, clerics and paladins are at their core the same archetype - heavily armed and armoured warriors powered (and driven) by their faith and able to perform miracles. Their are also strong implications that (by default, at least) they are part of the "establishment": paladins (we are told) like to form connections to noble fighters and clerics; clerics build temples and castles and attract followers including men-at-arms.

Druids, on the other hand, are true neutral (in AD&D as originally published clerics can't be true neutral) which is described (in Gygax's PHB and DMG) as a "naturalistic" ethos which holds (similarly to some real-world belief systems eg Stoicism, Daoism) that the world is in balance, with "nature" an ideal of that balance, and the main threat to balance being volitional/motivated action by PCs.

There's an unstated but unmistakable implication that druids are "outsiders" or on the wane - this is consistent with typical understandings of the Roman conquest of Britain, and with the Christianisation of Europe.

Given this, it would make sense for farmers to be connected to druids, insofar as farmers - like druids - are outsiders and largely neglected by the establishment. But it doesn't make sense to have druids at the heart of the establishment.

Having nature clerics together with druids, 5e-style, in my view creates a high risk of redundancy or even incoherence unless a distinction is drawn pretty clearly. If bucolic halflings are served by druids rather than clerics, that suggests not just that they're farmers but that they're farmers who have a different relationship to farming and the earth from their feudal, establishment neighbours.

 

[carkl3000]

Has no one even pointed out the fact that a gnome can grow a beard?

Gnome has beard ∆ halfling≠gnome.

QED