RPG Evolution: The Trouble with Halflings

Over the decades I've developed my campaign world to match the archetypes my players wanted to play. In all those years, nobody's ever played a halfling.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

So What's the Problem?​

Halflings, derived from hobbits, have been a curious nod to Tolkien's influence on fantasy. While dwarves and elves have deep mythological roots, hobbits are more modern inventions. And their inclusion was very much a response to the adventurous life that the agrarian homebodies considered an aberration. In short, most hobbits didn't want to be adventurers, and Bilbo, Frodo, and the others were forever changed by their experiences, such that it was difficult for them to reintegrate when they returned home. You don't hear much about elves and dwarves having difficulty returning home after being adventurers, and for good reason. Tolkien was making a point about the human condition and the nature of war by using hobbits as proxies.

As a literary construct, hobbits serve a specific purpose. In The Hobbit, they are proxies for children. In The Lord of the Rings, they are proxies for farmers and other folk who were thrust into the industrialized nightmare of mass warfare. In both cases, hobbits were a positioned in contrast to the violent lifestyle of adventurers who live and die by the sword.

Which is at least in part why they're challenging to integrate into a campaign world. And yet, we have strong hobbit archetypes in Dungeons & Dragons, thanks to Dragonlance.

Kender. Kender Are the Problem​

I did know one player who loved to play kender. We never played together in a campaign, at least in part because kender are an integral part of the Dragonlance setting and we weren't playing in Dragonlance. But he would play a kender in every game he played, including in massive multiplayers like Ultima Online. And he was eye-rollingly aggravating, as he loved "borrowing" things from everyone (a trait established by Tasselhoff Burrfoot).

Part of the issue with kender is that they aren't thieves, per se, but have a child-like curiosity that causes them to "borrow" things without understanding that borrowing said things without permission is tantamount to stealing in most cultures. In essence, it results in a character who steals but doesn't admit to stealing, which can be problematic for inter-party harmony. Worse, kender have a very broad idea of what to "borrow" (which is not limited to just valuables) and have always been positioned as being offended by accusations of thievery. It sets up a scenario where either the party is very tolerant of the kender or conflict ensues. This aspect of kender has been significantly minimized in the latest draft for Unearthed Arcana.

Big Heads, Little Bodies​

The latest incarnation of halflings brings them back to the fun-loving roots. Their appearance is decidedly not "little children" or "overweight short people." Rather, they appear more like political cartoons of eras past, where exaggerated features were used as caricatures, adding further to their comical qualities. But this doesn't solve the outstanding problem that, for a game that is often about conflict, the original prototypes for halflings avoided it. They were heroes precisely because they were thrust into difficult situations and had to rise to the challenge. That requires significant work in a campaign to encourage a player to play a halfling character who would rather just stay home.

There's also the simple matter of integrating halflings into societies where they aren't necessarily living apart. Presumably, most human campaigns have farmers; dwarves and elves occupy less civilized niches, where halflings are a working class who lives right alongside the rest of humanity in plain sight. Figuring out how to accommodate them matters a lot. Do humans just treat them like children? Would halflings want to be anywhere near a larger humanoids' dwellings as a result? Or are halflings given mythical status like fey? Or are they more like inveterate pranksters and tricksters, treating them more like gnomes? And if halflings are more like gnomes, then why have gnomes?

There are opportunities to integrate halflings into a world, but they aren't quite so easy to plop down into a setting as dwarves and elves. I still haven't quite figured out how to make them work in my campaign that doesn't feel like a one-off rather than a separate species. But I did finally find a space for gnomes, which I'll discuss in another article.

Your Turn: How have you integrated halflings into your campaign world?

 

[Lanefan]

This idea that races require niches that are some sort of limited resources is bizarre to me.

Not to me.

Humans are supposed to be the species that can do everything sort-of well. They're the baseline. Other species each come with certain advantages and disadadvantages in comparison to Humans, which in sum is what represents that species' adventuring niche and thus tends to push those species toward some classes and away from others.

I just don't see a problem with this.

Hobbits make good rogue-types and lousy melee warriors. So what?

Wanting races to be well-integrated into the campaign setting I can understand. But why do some people treat this integration as a zero-sum game? As long as the DM has the desire to do so, what’s wrong with them integrating any and every race they please into their setting?

Integrating a bunch of different species into the setting i.e. where and how they live, what role(s) each fills in the world, etc., is up to each DM to do in whatever manner she will based on her ideas for that setting.

What I'm talking about is integrating them into the run of play - what special thing(s) does this species bring to an adventuring party, and at the same time what other special thing(s) doesn't it have that most if not all others do? In other words, I'm approaching species comparison much the same as one would approach a comparison of classes; with the exception of there being no generically-always-useful class to mirror the generically-always-useful Human species.

 

[Hussar]

While I agree on having something like an anthro race (or, let's face it: tabaxi), goblins, or warforged in the PHB, what would be gained by relegating halflings and/or gnomes to the DMG or MM? The only possible benefit would be keeping the page count the same. But is that really a problem? I don't think people would mind if the PHB was a bit bigger (the Adventurer's Guide for Level Up is over 650 pages long, but that book contains cultures, destinies, maneuvers, strongholds, downtime activities, crafting, synergy feats, and a bunch of other things that almost certainly won't be in D&D 5.5 or 6e, or at least not in the PHB). And a bigger PHB is hardly a problem in a world of digital resources.

In 5e, the eladrin were used as a guide on how to make your own race. They weren't stuck in the DMG as being an unpopular choice.

That's a fair question. And, I think there are two things to be gained here.

1. Cleaning out the cruft. I'm sorry, but, Halflings and Gnomes are as relevant to the game as pages of descriptions of polearms. They are barely played, have virtually no impact on any of the settings and, despite having every possible advantage - being one of the 4 races in the SRD is a BIG advantage - they still scrape the bottom of the barrel. For fifty years. It's time to let them go. I doubt that they are going to make the PHB much bigger than it is - and I also doubt they are going to add many new races to the PHB - the 10 (ish) there seems to be a solid number.

2. It means that going forward, the game designers do not have to assume that every group has a halfling (or a gnome) and include halfling and gnome options in every single supplement. Because, let's be honest, you can't have a supplement that excludes anything from the PHB. They've demonstrated that pretty clearly. All the player facing books for 5e had to include halfling and gnome material. Bumping the halflings and the gnomes to the DMG (or, IMO, a player section in the MM along with all the other possible player races) means that WotC isn't forced to include halflings and gnomes in every single book. It frees up so much design space and cuts away the dead weight that's been dragging in the game for decades.

I honestly can't see any benefit of including two races in the PHB that virtually no one actually plays. I'm sorry, but, that's really the bottom line. Despite being a Core 4 race, halflings are (and always have been) the "also ran" race in the game and gnomes may as well not exist at all.

 

[Minigiant]

What I'm talking about is integrating them into the run of play - what special thing(s) does this species bring to an adventuring party, and at the same time what other special thing(s) doesn't it have that most if not all others do? In other words, I'm approaching species comparison much the same as one would approach a comparison of classes; with the exception of there being no generically-always-useful class to mirror the generically-always-useful Human species.

And the problem is that Halfling don't actually bring much to the table. Mostly because halfling fans didn't let it(well they might now)

Halfling The Race are from a tradition where races didn't give you much. But even in those time halflings gave you the less. Dwarves use to give you magic resist, poison resist,and darkvision. Halfling had both resists and a downgrade of infravision.

Now halfling lost both base resists, special vision, have fewer weapon choices, and have harder time knocking foes down. Dwarves kept everything but the magic resist AND got more.

The problem isn't all the fantastical races. The problem is all the fantasical parts of halflings suck because a bunch of halfling fans want to play challenge mode.

Halfling is a Hard Mode race. Don't blame Dragonborn or Genasi for that. Blame fans who purposely want halflings to be weak so "they can be underestimated".

 

[Charlaquin]

Not to me.

Humans are supposed to be the species that can do everything sort-of well. They're the baseline. Other species each come with certain advantages and disadadvantages in comparison to Humans, which in sum is what represents that species' adventuring niche and thus tends to push those species toward some classes and away from others.

I just don't see a problem with this.

Hobbits make good rogue-types and lousy melee warriors. So what?

Integrating a bunch of different species into the setting i.e. where and how they live, what role(s) each fills in the world, etc., is up to each DM to do in whatever manner she will based on her ideas for that setting.

What I'm talking about is integrating them into the run of play - what special thing(s) does this species bring to an adventuring party, and at the same time what other special thing(s) doesn't it have that most if not all others do? In other words, I'm approaching species comparison much the same as one would approach a comparison of classes; with the exception of there being no generically-always-useful class to mirror the generically-always-useful Human species.

Sure, but why must there only be one race that makes good thieves and poor warriors?

 

[Charlaquin]

And the problem is that Halfling don't actually bring much to the table. Mostly because halfling fans didn't let it(well they might now)

Halfling The Race are from a tradition where races didn't give you much. But even in those time halflings gave you the less. Dwarves use to give you magic resist, poison resist,and darkvision. Halfling had both resists and a downgrade of infravision.

Now halfling lost both base resists, special vision, have fewer weapon choices, and have harder time knocking foes down. Dwarves kept everything but the magic resist AND got more.

The problem isn't all the fantastical races. The problem is all the fantasical parts of halflings suck because a bunch of halfling fans want to play challenge mode.

Halfling is a Hard Mode race. Don't blame Dragonborn or Genasi for that. Blame fans who purposely want halflings to be weak so "they can be underestimated".

I don’t really agree, but even granting this for the sake of argument… so what? What’s wrong with having a “hard mode race”?

 

[Gammadoodler]

So, the halfling is not lucky unless the player is lucky. You seem to be coming around to getting my point with this. Taking half damage from poison is very different from "being lucky" because the poison damage is also itself a game mechanic. But luck isn't. Luck is what you deal with every time you roll the d20. And the halfling is no luckier than anyone else. Unless the DM goes out of their way to narrate that luck.



Ah, so now it isn't just a dexterity bump, but specifically a +2 Dexterity bump. Which, again, no longer matters in the game. But, we all know how the brightly colored Aarcrockra are known for their stealth right? I mean, bird people are always stealthy. And tielflings, one of thier most notable traits is their incredibly abilities at stealth and blending in. Especially the winged Tieflings who get +2 Dexterity. Nothing like massive batwings to make you stealthy. Plus Variant Humans with the Gunner trait. Nothing like firearm usage to make you incredibly sneaky.

I hope this also clarifies my position, because again, +2 Dex doesn't make you sneaky. Classes like Rogue make you sneaky.

The halfling is lucky as a function of access to an ability which gives them an advantage with respect to results that are adjudicated through the application of chance (the d20). They are 20 times less likely to critically fail a roll.

As for the part about the dex bump..while I understand that racial ASIs are not really a thing anymore, we should get one thing perfectly clear before moving on.

In 5e, an increase to a character's dex modifier literally..mechanically..100% means that character is stealthier as a result of that increase.

That's just like how the game works. As for your contra-examples..

As far as Aaracockra go, near as I can tell they have zero tradition of anything beyond flight and being a bird. Flight which has often meant they've received a hard ban at basically every table I've ever seen.

For bat-winged Tieflings, let's see..is there any other fictional character that might serve as a parallel..a humanoid that flies around looking like a bat. Some sort of bat-man maybe.. Maybe he soars around in the darkness..maybe he thinks he is the night. Well, if such a character did exist, they might be kinda stealthy, yeah.

As for humans, specifically variant ones. Let's think on this, the actual racial benefit is the opportunity to select from a wide number of feats, some of which may impact your ASIs, others which would not. The trait, such as it is, is variety. That said, your Gunner example would be stealthier despite their penchant for firearms. Because that is how stealth works in 5e.

It is governed by:

1. your proficiency/expertise in the stealth skill + your dex mod + your d20 roll (and any other flat or dice-rolled bonuses), and

2. Your ability to convince the dm that your character is in a position that would allow them to hide.

Generally speaking, class and subclass selections offer access to more impactful bonuses or more situations a dm can assent to stealth applicability, but the mod is always relevant and a larger dex mod makes characters sneakier than a smaller mod 100% of the time.

 

[Minigiant]

I don’t really agree, but even granting this for the sake of argument… so what? What’s wrong with having a “hard mode race”?

Nothing.

The issue is fans of the hard mode races being upset when people state that the Hard Mode races are weaker, less fantastical, and integrate worse with different settings.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Nothing.

The issue is fans of the hard mode races being upset when people state that the Hard Mode races are weaker, less fantastical, and integrate worse with different settings.

Should have stopped at "weaker," but, hey, 1 out of 3 ain't bad.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don’t really agree, but even granting this for the sake of argument… so what? What’s wrong with having a “hard mode race”?

Like maybe tell people about it when you do it first?

And also not take up the slot of an iconic species that people who aren't hardcore might want to take too?

 

[Faolyn]

I guess. I feel like most DMs wouldn’t be too keen on players narrating the results of their own actions. But I’m sure it will vary from table to table.

I think that depends a lot on both the table, the players, and the type of actions. IME, DMs love it when you get creative with your descriptions. We do this a lot at my table, especially when we roll badly. "I rolled a 3 for Perception, and noticed a particularly interesting stain on that floor tile."

But anyway, in my example, it was more that the DM ruled that the roll was high enough to steal the apple, and since the quality of the apple is meaningless to anything, the player is free to say that they "luckily" managed to grab a really good apple. Not that they luckily managed to grab a magical apple or something like that.

Oh my. I seem to have stepped into a much more heated discussion than I realized. No, I don’t think either Fey Ancestry or Lucky need to be roleplayed in any particular way.

Yeah, you missed one heck of an argument from a while ago on this exact same thing. And I agree with you. It's a passive trait, not one that requires the DM bombard the players with in-game examples of how it works for it to be meaningful.