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

[Hussar]

We aren’t obligated to agree just to make it easier for you to keep track of the discussion.

No, that's true. You are, however, somewhat obligated to bring up counter points when someone tells you you are 100% wrong. Agreeing with someone that tells you that you are 100% wrong and then expecting me to be able to know which option I'm supposed to respond to isn't exactly productive.

So, yeah, pick a lane. Because, as it stands, it's impossible to discuss halflings. They are now everything. They are peaceful homebodies that love good food and family that love traveling and exploring, preferring the quiet life as opposed to being empire builders, while being tactical experts who are so well trained they don't even need a militia for protection. They don't care about material things but, at the same time, want to accumulate wealth. They want to protect their homes, but, at the same time, will abandon those homes, even after the threat to their homes is dealt with, so that they can continue adventuring with their new friends, even though their new friends have no connection whatsoever to their homes. They are, at the same time, largely absent from the supplements because TSR and WOtC don't care about them, and presented as just as important as any other race in every adventure that WotC has produced for 5e.

You're absolutely right that you don't have to agree with folks who happen to also think that halflings are quite popular, but, it would be nice if you folks could make a coherent argument. As it stands, it looks like halflings are this uber-race in the game that is all things to all people.

 

[carkl3000]

But when talking about why a Dragonborn commoner would be different you said:

"The PHB also describes (and it seems weird to have to explain this) the personal qualities that the dragonborn culture values most, and their values as a culture are much different than those of the halfling culture,"

"I think that any character that had any knowledge of dragonborn culture, that met a hippy dippy dragonborn character would think it was strange and might wonder why this guy is so easy going when most of the other dragonborn they have met are very stern and serious and very into swords and familial honor"

The only differences you listed is how they are supposed to be played, their default lore. Ignoring how they are actually being played in this instance.

No. I said the player can play their character however they want. I would try to have my NPCs react to the PC in a way that I thought was appropriate. When I said that the NPCs would think it was strange if they met a hippy dippy dragonborn character that was a statement of how the player is playing the character. But maybe the player designed an easygoing dragonborn character, but for some reason they are trying to play it as more of a typical stern and serious character (maybe to try to fit in better with a group of dragonborn NPCs?). That is also valid. If they did that I would try to have my NPCs react appropriately to that situation as well. Keep in mind, when I say "react appropriately" that wouldn't generally mean that the NPC would just come right out and ask the PC "Hey you're one of those dragonborn, right? Why are you so happy anyway? Aren't you people supposed to be serious?" Believe it or not, some people understand subtlety and nuance.

The people who've told me that the only thing halflings care about are their villages and that they don't really care too much about the outside world because they are content with what they have?

This is at best an accidental fabrication (mistake of your memory), but I rather think it's a willful misrepresentation just meant to try to win internet points. I'm not sure where you even came up with the idea that halflings don't talk about the outside world.

I mean, let us take this Dragonborn village for a moment, that has decided to live a different way than their kin. So you really think that they are going to constantly tell their kids about how their kin live, when all they are really concerned with is the peaceful and content life they have right now?

And even if they did... so they know that their life isn't typical for Dragonborn, it doesn't change their life in any way to know that.

So, according to the lore, dragonborn are a race that had to fight to escape slavery. They have had their homeland taken from them multiple times. They have had to fight for their survival and I believe that's why they are described as being so martially inclined. Even their clans (their extended families) are described more like a military unit than they are like the typical idea of a family. They are described as hard and serious and proud and devoted to the honor of their clan above all else.

So if a player in a game of mine proposed the idea of a peaceful dragonborn clan that wanted to escape the troubles of their people and attempt to follow a simple agrarian lifestyle instead, I would want to know the story of how that happened and I would want to know what the relationship of that clan was to other dragonborn clans. And I absolutely think that the members of that clan would tell that story to their young ones. I think it's sounds great and interesting. It's the kind of thing I would want to talk over with a player before beginning a campaign so we could both incorporate the idea in an interesting way.

Conversely, to return to the example of the halfling stick-up gang. I think it could be a fun idea, but I would want to know where they came from and why they are doing what they are doing, and how they would handle it if they were confronted by a group of their own people who were sorely disappointed to see that they had gone so far astray. If Hattie was around, she'd give them a wallop with her trusty rolling pin.

So, this is really just based on people not expecting dragonborn to be peaceful and content with life, and so every stranger they encounter who finds a kind-hearted humble dragonborn is going to be entirely confused. But if they meet a kind-hearted and humble halfling that fits their stereotyped image.

So, your entire argument is "dragonborn aren't sterotypically kind, so everyone will judge a Dragonborn who is kind as being weird but Halflings are stereotypically kind, so no one will think they are weird.


Yeah... that sucks as a reason that Dragonborn don't work for this story. I don't typically take into account "people will stereotype them differently" when I build my characters.

I'm not sure why you care so much about lore if, when it comes down to the actually story, you're willing to toss it all out the window? Isn't the point of all the history to explain how the character fits into the story? How they expect to interact with NPCs of various factions and how various NPCs will interact with them?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I set the bar at 8, you set it at 9. Ok. The point is, you still set the bar, no? Even if you expand the bar to 10. It's simply a difference of where to set the bar, not the notion that the bottom ranked PHB races need something.

First, this is an inaccurate summary. Even in the piece you quoted I said that it should be set no higher than a certain position. I disagree that one's necessarily needed. Second you're using a disingenuous way of representing the positions. You are setting the bar at "8th and below should be cut" I'm saying "If there needs to be a bar at least the top 9 should be kept because that's the current size of the PHB." You're putting the bar below the 7th, I am below the 9th.

Second "punting them into the DMG" is not giving them something. You aren't actively in favour of giving halflings something despite the fact that even by your own metrics they are right on the borderline.

AFAIC, the only reason halflings are even in 8th place is because they are in the Basic Rules.

And AFAIC the only reason halflings aren't significantly more popular is because there are two separate races of halflings in the PHB; halflings and gnomes. There is almost nothing you can thematically do with a PHB gnome that you couldn't also do with a PHB halfling. Does this mean that you couldn't make a good (and much more magical) gnome race? No - 4e had one. But forest gnomes basically are halflings and don't even get a look-in in the racial popularity stakes against lightfoot halflings. And there is no reason at all why you can't have a halfling craftsman and tinker subrace.

And this is why utterly ignoring points about gnomes comes off as utterly disingenuous to me. If you are (and you are) suggesting eliminating gnomes from the PHB then this is going to have a significant effect on halflings.

Like I said, if they add kobolds in as a free to play race, halflings will vanish.

And like I said that is something that could only be stated by someone who didn't understand the thematic appeal of halflings and doesn't care to understand it. The thematic appeal of halflings is partly in their uncoolness and how like in over their heads humans they appear. Giving them cool scales and claws and dragon relationships moves them further away from this thematic appeal.

Also this is another example of your motivated reasoning.
You: We're talking about halflings, not other races in the PHB. I don't want to talk about other races in the PHB and what impact eliminating them would have on halflings.
Also you: If we added this specific other race to the PHB that are significantly less like halflings than the one I want to abolished then halflings will vanish so the presence of other races in the PHB is entirely relevant.

Hussar's attacking you from the perspective that you only want to talk about halflings and other races and their presence or not in the PHB is irrelevant. And Hussar's attacking you by suggesting that the hypothetical presence of a halfling alternative in a future PHB will impact their popularity. You are arguing here against diametrically opposed positions both claimed to be true.

The reason you see my arguments as incoherent @Neonchameleon is that I keep being forced to argue against diametrically opposed facts that are both claimed to be true. Makes it hard to be coherent when halflings are both present in many 5e supplements and used very effectively AND are virtually absent from 5e supplements and are barely being used at the same time.

No one forced you to say you weren't going to consider gnomes and any impact removing gnomes would have on halflings. No one forced you to suggest kobolds, despite being less halfling-like than gnomes, would crush halflings. But somehow you are simultaneously arguing both, attacking your own position from both sides. You keep arguing diametrically opposed facts that are both claimed to be true.

As for the position of halflings in supplements, this is once again Hussar vs Hussar. I believe it was you, personally, who made the claim that halflings were not used. This was a "fact" I think you introduced into the conversation. I say "fact" because @Faolyn (I believe) decided to fact-check you and found your numbers to be incorrect.

It also lead to the following position
You: Halflings are almost absent from supplements and adventures.
Also you: Halflings are in the PHB and pushed to the moon

Hussar's attacking you from the perspective that halflings are pushed to the moon. Hussar's also attacking you from the perspective that halflings are almost absent from supplements and adventures. It's incoherent because you are staking diametrically opposed positions. Both in the service of attacking halflings - but it looks as if your primary goal here is to attack halflings.

And I've (with the help of @Faolyn fact checking you) I've pointed something out. Large old D&D settings created in the 70s and 80s (especially including Greyhawk, the Realms, and Dragonlance) almost all short-change halflings. More modern D&D settings created in the 00s and 10s (especially including Eberron, the Nentir Vale/PoLand, and Exandria) do not. These are things that can both be true at the same time and if you feel that it's attacking you from both sides to say so then possibly you shouldn't make it a plank of your position. Unfortunately the default setting is a setting from the 80s where halflings are short-changed.

 

[Faolyn]

Again, you folks sort your stuff out and let me know because, well, right now it's punching fog. If I agree with you, I'm 100% wrong according to @Faolyn, and, if I agree with @Faolyn, you can claim that I'm wrong. Either way, I'm wrong. And, I'm being accused of arguing in bad faith?

Really? What have you agreed with me about that has caused anyone else to tell you that I'm wrong?

 

[bedir than]

and why should they not it would make sense if they were the same?

Because D&D isn't a world simulation game. Those aren't the stories it tries to tell. Assuming that it is a simulation sets yourself up to be wrong about basically every race and class.

Weird. The book I'm using says "Monster Manual". Are those all PC rules? Dang, that's awesome. Lot of stuff in here I'd think was broken on a player character.

Oh! Monsters to fight PCs! Excellent. Why didn't I think of that... probably because you aren't involving PCs at all and are instead using D&D's assorted racial makeup as a world simulation rather than the role-playing game it is.

 

[Faolyn]

A few folks have popped in to ask why this thread has gone on for so long. For me, it's because halflings have become this sort of quantum concept that is everything it needs to be, when it needs to be.

Halflings are bucolic farmers that live peacefully, hidden from view, in small communities that are suddenly expert soldiers, effectively armed and trained and ready to battle invaders at a moments notice, using expert tactics while at the same time, completely normal commoners who just want a good meal and a quiet life who rise up to defend home and hearth but, despite loving home and hearth, refuse to return to home and hearth because they might leave their friends, even though the iconic halflings do EXACTLY that - go home after the threat is gone and abandon their new friends.

They are both heavily present in published material for 5e and strangely absent at the same time. They appeal to those who want simple, every man concept characters while being equally appealing to a broader range of concepts. On and on and on.

So you agree that:

Halflings are a useful part of the game that can be used in any setting far more easily than any of the more lore-laden races.

Halglings, just like with actual historical people throughout the ages and across world, are mostly farmers who can be pretty tough in a pinch, especially when their lands are threatened. And since halflings live in a world filled with threats, they would quite likely have a lot of ways to deal with threats.

Halflings appear in any different books throughout the history of D&D, even if they don't have the same depth of lore as some of the other races; (which is fine, because you don't need to rewrite their lore all that much if you don't want to include things like Gruumsh and Correllon hating each other.

Halflings are popular and appeal to both people who want everyman characters and people who want to subvert the idea of the everyman (in much the same way that some people like playing ORC SMASH! and other people like playing the intellectual orc subversion).

Great; good to know you're finally on the same page as the rest of us.

I mean, here's how the conversation has gone:

Me: I think that the PHB should reflect what people are actually playing. Any race that isn't getting much traction and isn't getting played very much should get punted into the DMG to make room for fresh concepts.

You're ignoring the parts where we show you that lots of people are playing them but that you keep claiming it's not "enough" people.

You're also ignoring the fact that you can add more races to the PH without removing any of the existing ones. There's no magic limit to page count, especially as we go farther and farther into a world where dead tree editions are just one way to access the PH.

In fact, if half-races become just lineages that can be added on to another race, then those half-races don't need more than a paragraph of lore attached, and you end up with more room in which to add other races. And you might not even need that much lore! For all we know, each race in 6e will contain the line "to create a half-whatever, pick a main race, remove X traits and add Y traits."

Response: You only think that because you hate halflings. Why don't you just ban halflings?

Me: Umm, I just said that I'd punt anything that isn't making the grade. We can argue over where that grade should be, but, I strongly feel that anything that isn't making that grade (whatever that grade is) should get the punt.

So why do you insist that the grade be just higher than halflings? Why not insist that anything that's less popular than halflings gets removed?

Response: Why are you focusing on Halflings? Gnomes are less popular. You are only talking about halflings because you hate halflings.

Me: Umm... Heck, other people have said it's okay to punt gnomes and I agreed with them. No one seems to have any problems with punting gnomes particularly or folding gnomes into halflings. Both options would likely achieve the goal of making halflings more played, so I'm happy either way.

Since there was at least a bit of an uproar when 4e removed gnomes, I think that it's clear that yes, people had a problem with removing them.

Response: You are so focused on halflings. You must just hate halflings. Why won't you talk about gnomes?

You're also ignoring the fact that most of the people here aren't talking about gnomes at all.

 

[Faolyn]

I don't think Halfling will be able to hold off Gnoll raiders - even with their slings - without leadership either from returning heroes or from a pony-riding golf- (or should that be polo-)playing Halfling.

You know how those halflings like to go out, adventure for a while, and then come home with new stories to tell? Yeah. Those halfling villages will have at least a couple of retired adventurers in them.

To be fair, the same thing can be said about most other races as well. This is why gnolls are raiders and not conquerors. They are frequently encountering high-powered defenders wherever they go.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So, yeah, pick a lane. Because, as it stands, it's impossible to discuss halflings. They are now everything. They are peaceful homebodies that love good food and family that love traveling and exploring, preferring the quiet life as opposed to being empire builders,

Yes? Halflings aren't empire builders.

while being tactical experts who are so well trained they don't even need a militia for protection.

A militia is in practice a fairly low bar. It's weekend warriors and militia lose hard to professional soldiers at anything approaching even odds. And a sling is a weapon that is, in D&D, so simple that it's not even worth including as a racial weapon proficiency in the PHB because every single class in the game including both wizards and sorcerers is proficient with it. But halflings have historically had bonuses with slings, and giving them all sling proficiency is entirely in line with their fluff and would not affect the PHB mechanics in the slightest. And slingers are less dangerous at an individual level than fully armed and equipped militia members - but there are more of them. This doesn't make them "tactical experts" - just useful and backed by large numbers.

They don't care about material things but, at the same time, want to accumulate wealth.

Who has said either of these as extremes? Halflings are not wealth-driven. You won't see halflings sleeping on piles of gold but that doesn't mean they want to starve. No one has said halflings dislike good food and comfort.

They want to protect their homes, but, at the same time, will abandon those homes, even after the threat to their homes is dealt with, so that they can continue adventuring with their new friends, even though their new friends have no connection whatsoever to their homes.

This, as usual, is you either misunderstanding things or trying to invent a dichotomy. Halflings care about their communities and do what they need to help and protect them. You know what a community is? The people you eat with. The people you live with. The people you work with. The people you laugh with. The people you fight with (in both senses of the world). The people who, when dealing with outsiders, have your backs and you have theirs. It's not about the physical homes so much as the people.

You know what you do with the rest of you adventuring party? You eat with them. You live with them, in tents, and at inns. You work with them. You laugh with them. You fight with them (in both senses of the word). They have your backs and you have theirs.

After a non-trivial adventure a halfling is a member of a new community - the community that is their adventuring party. And they value that. They are still a member of their old community. But the communities they are members of are going in different directions and they need to choose between two communities they are members of. Many choose the one that has more direct need of them and know that the other one should be there for them when they want to return - and is more likely to be there if the people that have just saved it continue saving people.

They are, at the same time, largely absent from the supplements because TSR and WOtC don't care about them, and presented as just as important as any other race in every adventure that WotC has produced for 5e.

The following are all true:
1: You (at least I think it was you) made a claim that halflings were largely absent from the supplements complete with checking the adventures
1a: People took you at your word and assumed that you'd counted accurately.
1b: You got fact checked and found to have not actually presented accurate data. But it was given by you, so you've yourself to blame
2: TSR basically didn't care about halflings and settings from the 70s and 80s normally treat halflings badly
2b: The default D&D setting is the Forgotten Realms - which is an originally TSR-authored setting from the 80s. So here WotC have continued with this part of TSR's biases intact and deemphasise halflings. They even do so with respect to the newer races because they needed work to add to the Realms.

All these are true. If you say that halflings are pushed to the moon (as you have) you are wrong. If you say halflings are completely deemphasised and absent (as I have memories of you trying to) you are also wrong. Halflings are not treated as the equal of other PHB races with the possible exception of gnomes, and certainly not with elves and dwarves - but neither are they absent.

You're absolutely right that you don't have to agree with folks who happen to also think that halflings are quite popular, but, it would be nice if you folks could make a coherent argument. As it stands, it looks like halflings are this uber-race in the game that is all things to all people.

It doesn't if you stop bouncing from extreme to extreme.

 

[Faolyn]

Just as a guess here, since now we're insisting that 5 gnolls are attacking a village of FOUR HUNDRED people at a minimum, that perhaps the original example is a bit flawed.

We are? Where did we insist on that?

But, let's take a look at gnolls versus halflings.

On one side: a pack of gnolls who have no actual goal but death and destruction, to the point that they kill each other when there's nothing else to kill (canon description here).

Other the other side: a tightly-knit group of villagers who for the most part like and respect each other, who are willing to work together for the good of the group, who are pretty intelligent and crafty, likely have some retired adventures in their midst, and who are defending their homeland, which they know like the back of their hands and have likely had years, decades, or even centuries to fortify (here, I will point out real-world obstacles like ha-has, which fit with the halfling design on being unnoticeable; even if all they do is slow intruders down rather than stop them, they're still useful).

The halflings are going to take causalities, yes. And maybe they'll all be killed no matter how hard they fight. Sometimes, luck isn't on their side. But they're not just pushovers. They'll take some gnolls down with them. And maybe they'll be able to slow the gnolls down enough that a lot of the halflings can escape... and take to the canonically-accurate nomadic life for a while, until they find a place where they can settle down again.

Also, I'm pretty sure that anytime an attacking force was outnumbered 4:1, they lost, at least outside of very modern warfare anyway. Standard doctrine is a 3:1 ADVANTAGE before attacking. Anything less than that is considered suicidal. While gnolls might not be the brightest things in the world, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be attacking at such a HUGE disadvantage.

I wasn't aware that gnolls had a ton of tactical masterminds, what with their demon-inflicted bloodthirsty frenzy and their 6 Intelligence.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To match two crossbows, you'd need 4 slings. Yes, I get the idea that "every single halfling will have a sling and can fight" but relying ONLY on slings is the issue at hand here.

I'm not. I'm relying on defaulting to slings. Not on 100% of slings.

120 ft, in the dark? Remember I said the gnolls would attack at night when they have the advantage.

And they find just about nothing nothing; you don't attack looking for prey when the prey isn't there. The halflings are all in their concealed burrows under hills and behind extremely solid doors. They can't burn the ground. They can't find halflings to attack and kill. And they're dealing with concealed and reinforced doors and fighting in places deliberately too small for them at best.

Gnolls average over 7' tall while halflings average around 3' tall. This means that halflings, especially those living in hostile environments, are going to make their ceilings about 3'6" tall. It's a simple, practical defensive measure that means that gnolls and other tallfolk will be crawling 100% of the time and once the first gnoll is killed the ones behind it have to haul its corpse out for the next one to enter. Attacking a human fort would be more fun.

Yes, humans take a different approach. So what? The human approach also includes walls and tends to work pretty well actually. Not perfectly, because gnolls still raid and destroy human villages, but it works as well as any strategy can.

And I'm saying the halfling strategy works better than the human one. Especially because human ceilings have to be at least 6' tall to accommodate humans, so the homes aren't an inherent defence against gnolls.

Only people doing better are elves and dwarves, who with universal weapon training and severe terrain advantages are nearly impregnable.

These are in practice what the halflings have in their normal low key and practical way.
1: Universal weapon training: Sling. It's not recorded in the PHB because every single class is proficient with slings anyway, so it would be entirely redundant (halflings in previous editions had bonuses with slings so the affinity has long been part of D&D lore)
2: Severe terrain advantage: Low ceilings.

Now the severe terrain advantage doesn't apply to goblins and kobolds. But it definitely does to gnolls.

Because there is a counter-point here. If you didn't need those men in armor and better weapons, if every single threat could be taken out by people with a strip of leather and a handful of rocks... why would better weapons and armor even exist? Why would humans pay all that money they covet to have all this armor and weaponry when they don't need it?

Because
1: Humans don't have universal weapon training in most cultures. Halflings are more community oriented.
2: Other weapons are better than slings. One person with a shortbow is more dangerous than one person with a sling.

The point about slings is that anyone can carry a sling just about all the time. Halfling warriors tend to go for shortbows over slings because they are better weapons . But bows are (a) expensive and (b) get in the way when you are trying to go about your day. Slings are small, light, unobtrusive and mean that you are armed. They put you in the game.

Sling is 1d4+2, average of 1d4 is 2.5, 2.5+2= 4.5. turning 4.5 into a range is 4 to 5. True average of two shots is 9

Light crossbow is 1d8+2, average of 1d8 is 4.5, 4.5+2 = 6.5. Turning 6.5 into a range is 6 to 7. True average of two shots is 13

I guess you take exception to me saying "double the damage" when technically two slings is 1.3846 times the damage of a crossbow?

4.5*1.5 = 6.75 and 6.75> 6.5

I take exception to you saying "double the damage" when you're doing less than 1.5 times the damage. If you'd said 1.5 times then I'd have no problem. But if we're using normal rounding and only going to one significant figure then you round numbers less than 1.5 down to 1.

"One and a half times the damage" would be a good approximation. "About the same damage" would be pushing it but just about fair.