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

[Yaarel]

That would be a nice little feature in DnDBeyond. I stand corrected! Like an anti-home brew.

When creating a setting, the features that it excludes are as important as the features that it includes.

 

[Cadence]

Exactly this! Even their name refers to their relationship as just being a Small Human. Either make them less like humans (which would involve giving them a name-change and cultural change to differentiate them from humans), or make them straight up be humans of the Small size.

Weren't they called the Hin in one decent sized official setting from another edition?

 

[Yaarel]

Weren't they called the Hin in one decent sized official setting from another edition?

Hin makes them more human, as an ethnicity.

Hob makes them less human, as a fey.

These opposite solutions both work.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Halflings fill just as much or more of a niche as other races for me. So you don't care for Tabaxi either. But genasi do nothing for me. I've played a wide variety of races over the years, but I'll never play a tiefling. The fact that we have these options is not a bad thing.

And I don't understand how that can be possible. Genasi fill their niche of being elemental/half-genie people. Tiefling fill the niche of being fiend-touched people. If I ever get the chance to play another character, I know that there will be dozens of races more appealing to me than Genasi, Tieflings, and others, but there's a difference between "I find this race appealing for a PC" and "I find this race appealing as a fantasy race for the game/my world". Genasi are interesting to me from a world-building perspective (as a sort of ambassador/messenger/trader race between the humanoid races and genies, and people that have conflicted opinions on both sides of their parentage). Halflings are simply not, for the many reasons that I've outlined in the OP and throughout the thread.

I don't find genasi appealing as a race that I could play for a future character, but I do find them appealing as a race to populate the elemental planes in my world and to fulfill certain themes that other races can't do.

It's not necessarily a bad thing that you don't want to play them (quite honestly, the more races that I don't want to play, the easier it is for me to play the characters that I want to, because I have less options to choose from), but it's typically a bad thing from a design standpoint if you don't want anything to do with them as a DM.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Probably. I've tried to be reasonable, but I don't think this discussion is getting/going anywhere.

 

[Don Durito]

You know...I have never had "Dwarf" as the name that the Dwarves use among themselves either.

For obvious reasons.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Weren't they called the Hin in one decent sized official setting from another edition?

Mystara, IIRC. However, never in 5e.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You know...I have never had "Dwarf" as the name that the Dwarves use among themselves either.

For obvious reasons.

Actually, the name "dwarf" comes from the mythological race of Dwarves, and was then applied to people with dwarfism, so I never had any problem with that in my games.

 

[Faolyn]

Did you read my posts where I explained how I would execute such a change? IMO, it's much more insulting to classify "short people/people with dwarfism" as a whole other race than it is to have them be a subrace of humans, and I never said that I would make them be a subrace of humans for the exact same purpose that you're saying here. It makes them be "other", which is bad. Halflings in 5e do that to a worse extent than relegating them to a subrace would be.

Except that halflings, no matter what you may think, are not human. There's actually enough to them to maintain a separate identity from humans. The fact you don't like them doesn't change the fact that they are a not-human race of people.

There have been... 219 pages of people explaining the differences. If you don't like those differences, fine. If they're not enough for you, fine. But those differences do exist, whether you like it or not, and people who are not you like halflings. Why should your dislike of them--when they cause neither you nor your games any actual harm--mean that other people don't get to play them?

Also, in case you missed it, I would make them be a part of humans by straight up just allowing humans to be Medium or Small in 5.5e/6e. No subrace involved, just like how Owlfolk/Rabbitfolk/Dhampir/Hexblood/Reborn allow for any character that is a member of that race to be "Medium or Small".

A Small human is not the same as a halfling.

It's also questionable if owlfolk or rabbitfolk will be lineages that can be templated on a race, or completely new races. Especially when the Fey Folk UA actually called them "race options" and didn't say they could be put on another race; just that they can be customized via the Tasha's option.

That's not making them be a subrace, it's making them be a part of humans. They're humans through and through, the only mechanical difference is size. No subrace, no "luck" or "brave" mechanics, no "we're hobbits in all but legal name". Just straight up humans, but Small.

And here you can see that there are, in fact, mechanical differences between halflings and humans.

And in case you missed those last 219 pages, a lot of it boils down to this: the Forgotten Realms, which informs a great deal of 5e, did a bad job with halflings. But other settings have done quite a bit with them and made them very interesting.

Your issue isn't with halflings. It's the way the Realms (and Greyhawk) failed to use them. And go read those 219 pages because we've already said what needs to be said about Eberron and Dark Sun and I doubt anyone here wants to repeat themselves yet again.

How the hell is that offensive to people with dwarfism? How the hell is that more offensive to people with dwarfism than making them be the Halfling race?

Letting humans be either Small or Medium is one thing--although considering the mechanical penalties involved in being Small (such as inability to use Heavy weapons without a penalty), a Small human is still weaker than a Medium human, which I don't think is really what you want to say. If you give them special abilities to compensate for the weaknesses of being Small-sized, then you are othering or exoticizing people with dwarfism. If you don't give Small humans penalties for being Small, then you better have a darn good reason why other Small races do get that penalty.

If you create Small humans as a subrace, then you would have to create other human subraces--otherwise you're still othering little people as some exotic breed; they aren't "regular" humans. And if you create other human subraces, what would you base them on? People with gigantism? Would you get rid of goliaths as well? Or would you base them on different human ethnicities, or different types of disabilities? Yeah, there's some cans of worms waiting to be opened. Would you base them on completely fantastical concepts, like flying humans? In that case, why are little people the only real people who get this special treatment?

I mean, surely some people will complain "but why does this frog-race get the special treatment when we have these other 2!" if they're different things in the game. However, if they were the same race, this wouldn't be a problem.

Except that they're not creating a new race of bullgrunglis. Sure, they could create a frogfolk race with three subraces--but they didn't do that. They created a grung race, and they're not going to say it doesn't exist just so they can create frogfolk.

And none of that has to do with the fact that humans and halflings are different races.

Also, you may want to look up the term "whataboutism", cause that's exactly what this part of your post is doing. The fact that other parts of D&D may be redundant is no valid argument against halflings and humans being largely redundant.

I'm just pointing out your plan hinges on being incredibly insulting to a large group of people for absolutely no reason other than that you don't like a particular D&D race that no one is forcing you to use.

 

[Don Durito]

Actually, the name "dwarf" comes from the mythological race of Dwarves, and was then applied to people with dwarfism, so I never had any problem with that in my games.

That's weird. So real world entymology exists in fantasy worlds too? Surely if you're being consistent then the Dwarf name for themselves would be in old norse and be something like Dvergar?

Why not do the same for halflings then? Make up some fantasy entymology for how the first two halflings were created when a hermaphroditic being "Ling" got split in half by a bolt of lightning.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But most of them don't need hooks to justify their existence. Tortles don't need any lore justification other than "turtle person". The same applies to most animal-folk (Tabaxi, Leonin, Aarakocra, Owlin, Rabbitfolk, Lizardfolk, Grung, Locathah, Dragonborn, and so on and so on). Warforged have an obvious hook, as do Kalashtar, my world's Felshen, Vezyi, and Golmeng, as do Reborn, Dhampir, and similar races that fill mechanical niches that double as thematic niches (as a construct race, a psionic race, undead-touched race, and a half-vampire race). Plane-touched (Genasi, Tieflings, Hexblood, Aasimar, etc) have an obvious hook, as do almost every other race in the game. Most of them don't need a ton of lore to exist, because the base idea is often enough (or even more than enough) to justify their inclusion in D&D 5e.

Not all of the races have a ton of lore, but that's mostly because they don't need them. There are races that do need them, especially the Core 4 races in the game. If they're going to be a core race in the game, they need a justification other than "Tolkien!".

They already have that.

1: Halflings are emotionally resonant for a specific type of new player. They are small and in over their head, but very curious and interested in the community - i.e. because their friends have invited them and they want to find out what this whole thing is about. This on its own would be a strong justification to keep them.

2: Halflings are sociologically resonant. D&D humans are several human traits turned up to 11, mostly round drive and ambition. Seriously, read the PHB. This is a good thing - it encourages people to make strong, active, ambitious characters. But not every human is like that. Some humans have traits purposely deemphasised by D&D - and some of those traits actually make for decent party members. Most of those belong to halflings.

3: Halflings are mythologically resonant. They're the little people and do a much better job of it than forest gnomes (as the data demonstrates). The problem with gnomes is that the name "gnome" covers so much it doesn't really cover anything - and the 5e forest gnomes aren't magical enough to be some of the more magical or fey little people but they are all actually and explicitly spellcasters so they don't cover the more mundane versions of little people who you're never sure whether they are magic; handing out clearly defined spells strips gnomes of the mystery that should work here.

I don't know. I'm not sure. But I surely didn't expect "you're oppressing my playstyle!" to be amongst the most common responses.

And given that it's such a strong response and an unexpected one something is clearly going on.

Races are supposed to promote character ideas and stories. They're supposed to help the DM and Players bring them to life, not hinder it. In my experience and from what I've seen, halflings hinder it more than help it. They're just kinda there, not doing anything, and not giving the world anything except filling up space.

This speaks to your experience but most of this thread has answered you loudly and clearly that your experience does not match many of ours.

If I say "I don't understand the base halflings, and don't think that they support creative play", I expect people to say "here's how you can use them in a unique way", not "you're wrong, you're doing it wrong, and you're ruining D&D" (to be a bit hyperbolic).

Fine. I can't see how to use goliaths in a unique way. Would you please give me examples of how goliaths in particular are actually truly unique and do things it is literally impossible to do with any other race?

I on the other hand can see ways that using goliaths would be better than using other races to tell the same stories. But nothing truly unique. This isn't much of a problem because I don't have much need for uniqueness. I don't expect each piece of music to invent its own scales or its own instruments.

Because they aren't. Elves and Dragonborn are completely different in so many ways (physically, culturally, mechanically, etc) that Halflings just aren't in respect to Humans and Gnomes. The main visual difference between Gnomes and Halflings is that Gnomes have pointy ears, and the rest of them is pretty much the same (big-headed small human-looking people), and Halflings and Gnomes are similar culturally in a way that Elves and Dragonborn just flat-out are not.

And the problem here is with gnomes. D&D 5e gnomes are wannabe halflings - which makes a change from the earliest editions when they were wannabe dwarves. Which is a big part of why gnomes are less popular than halflings.

I feel the same way about Ogres and Hill Giants; if the only notable difference between the creatures is their size, there's no good reason to keep both of them.

The obvious reason here is o show character progression.

If one can fulfill the purpose of the other by letting it be one size smaller/larger, there's no purpose in having both of them.

Which is why D&D gnomes need a serious rework. If a "fey" race can't distinguish itself from a mundane one then the problem isn't with the mundane one. Gnomes and halflings should be at least as distinct as genasi and humans - but gnomes aren't doing their part.

And it all boiled down to basically "Tolkien", like I said in the OP. That proves my point.

If your point was "Tolkien nailed a mythologically relevant archetype" then why did you start this thread?

You can't please everyone, but that's no excuse for not attempting to, IMHO.

So why, when halflings by the numbers please significantly more people than the redheaded stepchild of D&D (gnomes) do you blame halflings and not, instead, seek to fix gnomes and turn them into something other than halflings' less popular, less thematically clear, and less resonant half-brothers?

D&D 4e had relatively resonant gnomes - they were explicitly creatures of the feywild (i.e. faerie) rather than the mundane world, and rather than all of them being able to cast a cantrip they had the racial ability to turn invisible when hit. They were much clearer, much stronger, much more gnome-like, and no one claimed that they and halflings were too alike.

If there only needs to be one race between halflings and gnomes then the popularity, the consistency, and the thematic clarity all say that gnomes are surplus to requirements - and you're doing things with gnomes (especially forest gnomes) that most people would with halflings. This doesn't mean that gnomes can't be fixed by making them more fae.