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

[Don Durito]

What on earth is this argument about?

If you don't believe that halflings can stand up to gnoll raids, then for god's sake don't put them in the part of your setting where the gnolls are.

I don't know. A lot of this thread is people dumping anvil's on their feet and and going "It hurts when I walk".

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Yeah, how could a game about making a fantasy world to adventure in involving making a simulated world?

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.

Really? Huh. I was pretty sure that it was @Neonchameleon who insisted on giving the halflings a bonus to dexterity. That's the only aspect of the "racial make-up" being used in this thought experiment. Sorry for forcing you to use the Racial bonus to dexterity @Neonchameleon , we can go back to the commoner statblock in the monster manual that has all 10's and gets +0's to everything. That way we aren't doing things the wrong way, that I'm forcing you to do.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I was reading this thread: D&D 5E - Strixhaven: Curriculum of Chaos No Subclasses Confirmed by James Crawford about Strixhaven and how the play test of the cross class subclasses resulted in those cross class subclasses getting punted because there was a clear response from fans that it wasn't wanted because fans want subclasses that can be used as broadly as possible.

And you are once again making unrelated points that do not actively reflect what you are summarising. To quote Crawford​

'The Unearthed Arcana playtest did the job we asked it to do,' Crawford said. "Occasionally, we put some very experimental things in front of D&D fans and ask them if they want to see more of it. In this case, the very simple answer was 'No.'​

​

'We learned two really important things from this playtest that reinforced something we've been seeing from the D&D community going back to D&D Next (the original playtest for Fifth Edition rules)' Crawford continued. 'People love for D&D subclasses to speak to the distinctiveness of a particular class. 5E fans also want subclasses to be usable in as many subclasses as possible, since so many DMs homebrew their own settings. In this case, there was a bit of an uphill climb since the subclasses were so tied to a particular setting, that being the magical college of Strixhaven.'​

People weren't saying "meh, don't mind" to Strixhaven. They were actively and directly saying "No." Or in other words saying "A game with the Strixhaven prestige classes in them is actively worse than one without them." Which was pretty much my response to them. I am going to openly say "A game with the proposed Strixhaven prestige classes is, irrespective of any other factors, meaningfully worse than one without them".

Are you prepared to say the same about halflings, i.e. that you think, irrespective of any other factors, that a D&D without halflings would be actively better than one with halflings?

If you are not prepared to say that you think that irrespective of any other factor that a game without halflings would be better than one with then even you, who is passionate enough to spend hundreds of posts in this thread, do not dislike halflings the way people disliked the Strixhaven prestige classes.

Now, to head this bit off, I'm NOT SUGGESTING that the bar for PHB races be 70%. That would be ridiculous and, well, that's not what that 70% number means. It means that 70% of those polled have looked at that option and said, "Yeah, I'd like to see that in the game" not, "I am going to use that option right now."

And that's not the issue. Crawford was talking about people saying "no". He was talking about people saying "I do not want to see this in the game at all." The 70% are irrelevant. What matters is the 30% in this case saying "No, nay, never". Find me those people saying "Halflings in the PHB make the game worse".

Which brings me back to that 5(ish) percent played. I have a gut feeling that those numbers reflect a general dissatisfaction with halflings (as well as gnomes and possibly a few others) in the PHB.

For the record I'm not in the 5%. I don't think I've ever made a halfling character in my entire time playing D&D. This doesn't mean that I'm dissatisfied with them. It just means they aren't my thing for characters. However I've had people at the table both when I was running and playing play them and have fun. And there's no other race that does what halflings do. (Especially not Kobolds).

But, like I said, to me, the only reason that halflings are as high as they are is because they're in the PHB. The numbers are artificially inflated because, if you're using the PHB to choose a race, and you want to play a small character (a completely understandable archetype) you only have two choices, and one of those choices appeared in Tolkien, which, let's be honest here, is something of a boost.

And one choice appeared in Warcraft, which, let's be honest here, is something of a boost. And more people have spent more time playing WoW than ever have on Lord of the Rings. They may be big books but aren't that big. Yet halflings are winning.

Which is why I was saying that something like a playable kobold in the PHB would really gut halflings. The counter claim is that I just really don't "get" why people play halflings. To me, I think a significant number of people play halflings because they want to play rogues, and halflings are a great choice for rogue.

Elves are also a great choice for a rogue. So are humans. And no you don't get why people want to play a race of childlike wide-eyed people in over their heads. Especially when they are newbies.

Plus the whole "small and unnoticed" archetype is attractive as well.

And here Kobolds in a meaningful way fail because Kobolds, other than their height can not look nondescript so while they can be physically unnoticed they can't be socially unnoticed. They have scales and are related to dragons for crying out loud. Kobolds can be "small and good at hiding" - but they can't also do the other half of that by looking very average other than being small in situations that human players are familiar with.

Only thing is, kobolds fill both those archetypes. Small, unnoticed, cute, likable (don't think so? Ask anyone who played Sunless Citadel who Meepo is), great rogues, sneaky, AND, they do have the whole crafting aspect as well, so, they appeal to folks who want to play casters or artificers.

As mentioned above kobolds fail to be socially unnoticed for most people. Yes, they have the crafting aspect and would be a good basis for a race of small crafters and rogues, possibly dislodging the rock gnomes. But they don't do the halfling thing. (And there's no reason that halflings shouldn't have crafter-archetypes).

It has been suggested that gnomes and halflings be folded in together. I like this plan. It resolves my issues. But, I think if you fold a gnome with a halfling, you get a kobold.

So if you fold two races with skin and hair together you get scales? Interesting approach to biology there.

 

[carkl3000]

And yet, the NPC's reaction is all based on the steroetyped Dragonborn. Based on "how they are supposed to be played"

Again, you are saying that the reason you can't tell the story of a humble and kind farmboy dragonborn is that the NPCs will react differently to that character than they would to a humble and kind farmboy halflling. The issue isn't the character you can play, it is the reaction of the world to that character. I'm not saying that is unimportant, but it does seem like a lot of tautological bias to say that the only reason halflings can fill this role is because halflings already fill this role.



Ah yes, the classic "You must either be wrong or lying, because no one said that"

This would be my third time attempting to show exactly when someone said that, but since every single time I've done so people have descended upon me to tell me how I can't read english and even once accused me of harrassment, I'm not going to bother. You won't change you mind even if I provide you evidence.



And yet again, the entire problem with playing the Dragonborn in a halfling style character and story is that people will expect them to be a dragonborn, and not a halfling.

Which leads to only halflings filling the niche because halflings already fill the niche, because everyone expects halflings in the niche. It is all just a tautology. They are because they are, and others can't because they aren't.



Because I was asking "why can't a dragonborn fulfill this type of story" and the answer I am getting is "because a dragonborn isn't a halfling, and stereotypically, dragonborn don't fulfill this story, so NPCs will react to them differently."

So only halflings can tell halfling stories because only halflings are expected to be halflings. It is a non-answer. They can't tell those stories because you'd have dragonborn treated differently as the DM, and that different treatment makes it so they can't tell the same story. It is just a giant circle that you are forming, and then telling me that because that circle is true, you can't do the same thing with any other race.

You've gone off the rails. This is just beyond stupid now.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Reinforces what fiction? Currently there is no fiction that says halflings carry around slings, you are making it up for this excersise. Additionally giving halflings a massively buffed ability with slings starts to seriously warp some current balance in the game. Unless you think every single character getting access to a 120 ft weapon that ignores cover, for free, at level one, isn't a pretty major boost in power. Sure, it is low damage, but the game wasn't built for that to be balanced.

So, you made up some fiction. The fiction isn't quite working, so you buff everything to make it work, and ignore the potential knock-on effects?

All to prevent halflings from using something that looks like a weapon.

The point is it doesn't matter. I'm not trying to win this argument. I don't need to be convinced.

Saying halfling villagers use slings effectively for defense (however that works), adds variety without needing to add significant power.

Meanwhile your need for halfling villagers to optimize based on the weapons table, removes variety for the sake of mechanics. Mechanics, which aren't very good. And then you complain they're just like humans.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

So then what is the issue with my proposal?

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.

1) How did the halflings notice the gnolls approaching in the dark to the point where they are already hidden in a completely fortified location?

2) What do you mean "extremely solid doors"? Where is this coming from? Even if it is a really strong wooden door, it is likely a DC 15. Gnolls have a +2 strength and the help action. Breaking down the door isn't that hard.

3) Why would you burn the ground? You shoot flaming arrows through the windows of the house, and set fire to the inside of it. Or, if you are really fancy, you do set fire to the the grass, and create a whole bunch of smoke. Potentially killing halflings that way.

4) Wait, now the doors are extremely solid, reinforced, and concealed?

5) Yeah, I covered squeezing. A gnoll can fit into a small space, like that 3 ft ceiling you mentioned. They have disadvantage on attacks and advantage on being hit. "The first gnoll to be killed" assumes that a gnoll in melee killing two halflings a round is killed before they kill all the halflings. Since the gnoll broke in, unless it is killed that turn, it kill two halflings, How many are bunched together in this single house?

You seemed to have just assumed that halfling homes are impossible to breach, with their glass windows and wooden doors. And that somehow the squeezing rules make a gnoll helpless. That isn't how that would work.

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.

You need to review the Squeezing rules. Halfling homes aren't an inherent defense. And then humans should also get slings and default to having slings available. It is the best way to defend themselves and it isn't like they wouldn't want to do that. They are all hyper-ambitious heroes who want to leave their mark on history, remember?

Oh, and to just run the numbers on squeezing. Half speed is 15ft, reach 5 ft, more if they can throw. If there is a halfling within 20 ft of the door, then the gnoll can stab them, then move up to half their speed, that would be 7.5 ft, so if I don't round that is reaching a second halfling if they are within 27.5 ft. of the door. Now, I can't say for certain how large a halfling home is, but since it is half the size of a human home, and 30 ft gets you basically anywhere in my house you care to be (living room is 16 ft, hallway is 19 ft) I'd assume that nearly 30 ft covers the halfling abode pretty clearly.

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.

#2 is false.

#1 is also false. Not every single person in the world is proficient with the sling. Yes, all PC classes are, but not all halflings are PCs. And, while halflings in previous editions had some affinity for slings, it seems to no longer be the case. Could be interesting to bring back, I do think the sling needs more love, but I'm working from the current version of halflings using slings.

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.

#1 is only true if your previous #1 is false. So, which is it? does everyone in the world have proficiency in slings, or do only haflings have proficiency in slings? You can't be arguing both. You have to make a call. Either everyone is, and that includes humans, or not everyone is, and halflings are no more likely to have proficiency than others.

Yes, you can rewrite them to give them all sling proficiency, but that is rewriting them to give them a weapon proficiency, the thing that most people frown on.

Also, for @bedir than and others following along, note that I didn't bring up weapon proficiencies. All of my numbers where generated assuming no proficiency bonus. Neonchameleon is the one bringing that up first.

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.

I see you cut it off before the range and accuracy calculations that were 2 slings = 1 light crossbow.

But whatever, be pendantic about it. A light crossbow does 1.3846 times the damage of a sling. It still cuts the number of attacks pretty close to in half, because you can't make a 0.3846th of an attack.

And, just to show my work. 22/4.5 = 4.8888 -> 5 attacks by rounding up
22/6.5 = 3.3846 -> 3 attacks by rounding down. I could round them both up. but this is an average, and we all know that the average isn't going to be exact. And it is easier to make up a 0.3846 in attacks that a 0.8888

Also, when we add in accuracy, the sling has an accuracy of 25%, while the crossbow was 40%. And if I add those in like so

22/(4.5*0.25) = 19.5555 -> 20
22/ (6.5*0.4) = 8.4615 -> 8

Damage AND range to avoid more disadvantage is fairly impactful. Oh, and is we assume night and disadvantage anyways

22/(6.5*0.25) = 13.5384 -> 14 attacks. Not double, but reducing the raw number of attacks by 30% is significant enough I'd say.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You also seemed to claim that for some bizarre reason halflings paid no taxes.

I never claimed that. You made up the fact that I claimed that, by misinterpreting my point.

Now it's "they'd be okay if they had crossbows"? Shortbows aren't worthy weapons?

Shortbows are fine weapons. Harder to use. Crossbows are point and shoot. Also a light crossbow is a 1d8 compared to the shortbows 1d6

Slings, which are dirt cheap, easy to carry and useful for hunting small game would be useless?

Useless against a dedicated party of armed raiders, that the math shows us would take 6 to 7 shots on average to take down? Hmmm, yeah. I don't think I'm in a good situation where I die in one blow but the other guy can take 7. Also, the range issue. 30 ft is very close compared to 80ft.

It's a strange hill to die on. Most commoners are not going to have crossbows, they're weapons of war. If your commoners are constantly at war, then yes, you have a monster world.

No. Light Crossbows are simple weapons. Weapons of war would be martial weapons, that is why they are called "martial" meaning "of or appropriate to war"

In the 1700's to 1800's it was not unusual for a pioneer family to have a rifle. Why is it so bizarre and strange for the halflings to have a DnD world equivalent? Unless you think the designers misplaced light crossbows and they actually aren't simple weapons?

Most halflings in my campaign world survive because they aren't constantly being attacked, if they are attacked it's likely that they retreat to their homes (which as others have pointed out are built for small people and likely underground) or run away like commoners throughout history have done. Halfling commoners are no more or less able to protect themselves than human commoners. They're probably more capable for the variety of reasons I, and others, have posted.

And, thank you for again proving you never read my posts. I have never said that halfling commoners are unable to protect themselves but human commoners are. I hold human commoners to the exact same standards.

Also, "small homes" are not the defense people seem to think they are. And they aren't underground, they are hills. They are just sod houses with wooden walls under the sod, and built round. They don't burrow multiple feet deep.

 

[Chaosmancer]

OR you could interpret what was written to mean "halflings, who have trained all their lives with slings (albeit in a more casual way than someone in an army would train) would respond the same way that any other militia would respond to invasion, and as a result they are more likely to suffer fewer losses."

But since you don't like halflings--as you have proven time and time again with your actions--you choose to read anything anyone writes about them in the least charitable light possible.

So, halflings can't be expected to train with bows or crossbows, because they are weapons of war (even though they aren't) but they can be expected to have trained all their lives with slings.... because we want them to have slings as weapons to fight off invaders.

I do love how halflings can just have whatever made up things you want them to have, just so you can say we are wrong. The word "sling" doesn't even appear in any halfling write up for 5e, either PHB or Mordenkainen's, but now they are training all their lives to use this weapon that no one else would ever utilize, even though it is a massively effective (in your view) way to defend against possible raiders.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What on earth is this argument about?

That halflings aren't allowed to use crossbows because those are weapons of war.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You've gone off the rails. This is just beyond stupid now.

I'm only pointing out your own argument.