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

[Crimson Longinus]

Size and temperament is insufficient to justify a separate species.

Sure, but some people really like dwarves.

 

[Yaarel]

Sure, but some people really like dwarves.

I am all for doubling down on the nonhuman concepts of the dwarf.

 

[Hussar]

Not sure what this test proves. I thought the problem was lore or culture. Honestly, the physical difference between elves and humans are even less. Cherry picking some images of 2 humans that are drawn with disproportionately larger heads or something doesn't prove anything. Not that anything can be "proven" here anyways. I think at this point, this thread has just become a part of our lives that we are not willing to let go

Y'know, I should have bet someone that this would be the first response.

Try it. Pick 10 elf pictures and one human picture and see if we can't find the human. Elf pics are generally pretty easy to spot. It's very, very difficult to draw an elf that looks human. And since 3e, elves have become even more distinctive.

But, hey, if halflings are so easy to spot, have at it. Shouldn't be difficult, after all, halflings share nothing with humans according to poster after poster. And, while elf might be hard to spot (which, honestly, I doubt) dragonborn and tieflings surely aren't. Yet, people keep telling me that all these races are indistinguishable from humans. They're just like humans.

 

[Yaarel]

Elf pics are generally pretty easy to spot. It's very, very difficult to draw an elf that looks human. And since 3e, elves have become even more distinctive.

I suspect 5e now depicts the physical variations of Elf. Which I like.

Some elven individuals look like human feminine physiques. And now, some elven individuals look like human masculine physiques. For example, in Tashas, the High Elf Psiknight is beefy and masculine. I feel this is important, because the Elf personifies beauty, and masculine beauty includes muscularity. The Elf has the full range of beauty, including individuals of androgynous beauty. Of course, feminine "elf babes" have been part of D&D since the 1970s.

When looking at the Psiknight, only the ears signal that the character is nonhuman, and even then some players might assume a "Half" Elf.

Anyway, I like this direction. With regard to the Elf, their magical nature is far more important to define their nonhuman traits than their "swimmers build" or their ears.

Also, because any race can swap their ability score improvements there will always be individuals of any race, who are exceptionally strong, dexterous, or tough. I want D&D to depict these.

 

[Hussar]

You think THAT looks human?

 

[Yaarel]

You think THAT looks human?

He looks like a friend of mine!

 

[Oofta]

Y'know, I should have bet someone that this would be the first response.

Try it. Pick 10 elf pictures and one human picture and see if we can't find the human. Elf pics are generally pretty easy to spot. It's very, very difficult to draw an elf that looks human. And since 3e, elves have become even more distinctive.

But, hey, if halflings are so easy to spot, have at it. Shouldn't be difficult, after all, halflings share nothing with humans according to poster after poster. And, while elf might be hard to spot (which, honestly, I doubt) dragonborn and tieflings surely aren't. Yet, people keep telling me that all these races are indistinguishable from humans. They're just like humans.

Without a frame of reference? Looking at them only visually without knowing anything else? Pictures by a variety of artists with different styles? Some of which (like #6) are so dark you can't see any distinguishing features? I would say #6 is unknown, #8 is a gnome because of the facial hair. But it doesn't prove anything.

Visuals, and only visuals with no context are not what distinguish the races. So what if they look like a different race if you have no scale? That's only part of what makes them different. They're half the size, have different motivations and different abilities. But yes, take away just about everything that they stand for and they're just like every other race.

But fundamentally all races in D&D are just humans with slightly different visuals. Take away a dragonborn's scales and breath weapon and voila! Human! Look at this picture, what race is it?

According to the artist, it's a dwarf female. Because they're wearing armor I guess?

So I guess dwarves are just humans, right?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It is bizarre how people ignore the size like it was no big deal (pun intended.) Being half the size of most people alters things massively. Imagine if you lived in world where most things were twice the size they're now. It would feel pretty different. And visually it is definitely far greater difference than having pointy ears. (And halflings often are depicted with somewhat pointed ears too.)

As for mechanical traits, I think that lucky and brave are far bigger deals than dark vision or even breath weapon. They actually affect the psychology of the being instead of just being super powers.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Well, points for honesty here. At least you're up front about it being about the poster and not the post. Can't really argue with that, now can I?

If you cannot engage with the content of my posts, please feel free not to reply.

The only purpose of the edit was to remove the part that indicated that you had not replied, because it was true of the poster I thought I was replying to but not you.

 

[Yaarel]

It is bizarre how people ignore the size like it was no big deal (pun intended.) Being half the size of most people alters things massively. Imagine if you lived in world where most things were twice the size they're now. It would feel pretty different. And visually it is definitely far greater difference than having pointy ears. (And halflings often are depicted with somewhat pointed ears too.)

The Small size can help flavor a package of clearly nonhuman traits, but by itself is negligible.

As for mechanical traits, I think that lucky and brave are far bigger deals than dark vision or even breath weapon. They actually affect the psychology of the being instead of just being super powers.

Brave is kinda useful, at least when one needs it. The Fear Resistance is better than the elven Charm Resistance, in any case.

If I was forced to choose between Fear Resistance and Darkvision, it would be a tough choice. Darkvision sure is convenient and, situationally, can be useful for stealth.

Mechanically, Lucky is unpleasant. It is infrequent and passive without any player agency. It is not nothing. Some players might find its gambling aspect fun. At most, it is worth a good skill. By contrast, the Lucky feat is worth a feat, grants player agency in vital situations, and outclasses the Halfling Lucky.



Of all the traits that the Halfling has, I consider the Fear Resistance to be the only one with potential to explore as a nonhuman quality. But, of course, the D&D Players Handbook doesnt explore its nonhumanness. Being unusually brave around Undead and Dragon and so on, is noticeable.

The fearlessness slightly conflicts with the childlike qualities, which tend to be timid and nonconfrontational. But it can work, in the sense of children often not understanding danger. A child can walk right into a busy road, jump off a house trying to fly, or play with an electrical outlet, and stuff like that.



The Brave trait is less than enough, but it is something to work with as part of a package of nonhuman traits.