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?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why does increased chance to pass fear checks make you brave? That sure is a mystery!

Next: Does increased chance to resist charm magic make elves more resistant to charm magic? Discuss!

So, you would contend that a character who fails against dragon fear, but keeps fighting despite shaking in terror, is not brave?

 

[Chaosmancer]

We definitely haven’t consumed the same media then. Certainly it’s not the case in D&D that all “beast folk” are closely related

Oh yeah, I know it isn't the case in DnD. But I'm so used to the trope that it feels weird not to combine them.

I get wanting to have a single mechanical construct that can be used to represent various anthropomorphic animals, perhaps with customizable stats to create the particular species you want. But having them all be one “race” lore-wise? Nonsense. You can’t honestly think D&D would be better off if Yuan-Ti, Gnolls, Slaadi, Kenku, Kuo-Toa, and Tabaxi were all one race that shared the same lore. So much of the richness of the setting(s) would be lost!

Well... no.

Yuan-ti are VERY different in my games, that's why I didn't include them in my list.
Slaadi will never be playable in my games, they are abominations.
I don't even use Kuo-Toa, like... ever. I keep forgetting they even exist. They aren't even a consideration for me.

Now, I could see having Gnolls, Kenku and Tabaxi sharing a common ancestry. I pretty much have discarded the Kenku's inability to speak except by copying, because it is such a pain to even attempt to role-play. If you can do it, great, but no one I play with is good enough to do it, and they always give up within two or three sessions. And like... Tabaxi are just cat people, unless you are playing in the Forgotten Realms, which I don't. So, Cat-people, Raven-People, and Hyena-people could all be the same "people", perhaps altered by the primal spirits to be closer to a specific animal type. Or descended from awakened animals that were created by ancient druidic rites.

I mean, otherwise I have to explain how Raven-People have nothing to do with Hawk-People, who are completely unrelated to Owl-People... which seems weird when I can just make "Bird People" and have them all just exhibit different types of birds. It isn't like the Tabaxi don't already cover Leopard-People, Panther-People, and Lynx-People.

 

[Chaosmancer]

"We" haven't established anything about 3%. MaxPerson has pointed out that the chances of rolling two 1s in a row is very, very slim. But you're ignoring that because they can reroll the first 1, they have a second chance to succeed.

I'm not going to do the math here, but being able to reroll a crit failure is good. Especially since this reroll can give you the opportunity to spend inspiration.

Also, I went back and checked as as far as I can see, the only person claiming that there's a 3% increase is you. I have no idea where that number came from, other than you making up some nonsense about humans passing a death save 45% of the time and halflings passing it 47%, or something like that. Your numbers don't work, whatever the specific details are. But here's another thing you're ignoring. You make 1 death save a turn, and have to make three successes before you make three failures. Let's say both a human and a halfling have to make them, and both roll 1s. Well, the human has now made two failures, and is at great risk of death: one more failure or an injury spell death. They could very easily die in the next round, unless they immediately get help.

But the halfling gets to reroll and, we'll say they roll a 2. A terrible roll in your book, but guess what? This only counts as a single failure. They get two more chances, which means more chances to be stabilized and more chances to succeed.

So, you aren't going to do the math. You don't understand my math. But you know my math is wrong.

Wow, if I have ever seen a more perfect example of why debating people on the internet is a massive pain in the butt.

But, you know what, I'm in the trenches, so why not waste more of my time.

Is 45% nonsense? Every number on a d20 is a 5% chance. You succeed on a death saving throw when you roll a 10 or higher. Therefore to fail a death saving throw, you need to roll a 9 or lower. 9 x 5 = 45%

Basic algebra? NONSENSE!

But, it gets more nonsensical. See, Halflings ALSO fail on a 9 or lower, now I may have reversed my math the last time, but calculating luck is pretty easy. See, it only activates when you roll a 1. That's 5% of the time. Then, you multiply that by the chance of success. I reversed it last time and multiplied by the chance of failure, so 47.25% isn't accurate. Instead, it is 5*55%= 2.75% you then subtract this from the original chance of failure so, it is actually 42.25%! . So, a human succeeds 55% if the time, and the Halfling succeeds 57.75% of the time.

The 3% is assuming a success rate of 60%

But, you are correct, the 5% of the time that a halfling might roll 1 one on their death save is basically prevented. Huzzah and hooray! Our supernaturally lucky character who was beaten to death and left bleeding in an alleyway is going to bleed out slower and have a slightly less slim chance of recovering.

Well, yes. You're showing something that is not a D&D game written by someone who almost certainly didn't turn a real game into a comic and for I know doesn't even play D&D in the first place, and expecting that to mean something about D&D. What did you think was going to happen?

I mean, obviously an officially licensed DnD comic with officially licensed and written characters (The halfling is Bree Three-Hands is a Level 7 Rogue Thief) couldn't possibly have anything to do with DnD, right?

I mean, the author is John Rogers, who helped right the 4e Manual of Planes, he probably has never even heard of DnD?!

You know, maybe, the more I think about this. Maybe I picked an officially licensed DnD product to talk about DnD because I thought it might connect to DnD. Crazy thought, I know. It is almost like I expect the media surrounding the game to be somehow connected to the game.

Good things halflings aren't supernaturally lucky, then. They're not reality warpers and have never been treated as such in the game. They just get to reroll 1s.

They get to reroll 1s by using a trait called Lucky. You're the only one here who thinks that this should mean something other than what it says.

I have no idea. You seem to think that it's not your job to narrate the game or to come up with moments of luck for your halfling PCs.

If halflings aren't supernaturally lucky, then why are they supposedly defined by their good luck? Why is it that DnD comics, shows and books have often depicted them as "reality warpers" as you want to put it?

Also... yeah, if it isn't my job as the DM to narrate the Elf PC being aloof, or the Dwarf PC being stubborn, or decide when the Dragonborn PC has flames licking from their jaws, why is it my job to make sure to bend the world to narrate halflings being lucky? I've already got Maxperson saying that I must be a Bad Faith DM because I don't go out of my way to describe lucky events happening to the halfling over and above what happens to the rest of the party. But I don't have to narrate the racial traits of the other party members. They get to do that. They get to decide when their elfness or dwarfness or goliathness comes into play. But if I as the DM don't enforce halfling luck... it barely exists.

Yes. They have a rules exception. They don't need to roll to do this thing. You haven't broken the list apart. They can automatically do something that other creatures can't do without effort. Just like creatures with darkvision can easily see in the dark where other creatures can't.

So? Probably because it didn't have a memorable name.

Or... maybe because it isn't defining? Maybe "everyone can do this if they try" makes it not something that feels unique about the halfling?

Halflings are Lucky and Brave, because they have traits called Lucky and Brave and those words are adjectives. You're the only one insisting that traits = narrative.

Okay, fine. Give me a scenario where a halfling is brave where a human level 10 paladin can't be brave?

In fact, I'll be more fair. Give me a scenario where a halfling is brave, where a human can't be, without mentioning dice rolls.

Because, again, I've only been talking about the narrative impact. I've been doing that from the very beginning. If your just angry because you think I'm saying these mechanical traits are weak or something, then just stop, because I'm not discussing that. Because, shockingly, the narrative does matter. This isn't a board game, it is a role-playing game. So the narrative impact matters. And unless you are saying that you cannot be brave unless you pass a saving throw against magically induced fear, then halflings are not uniquely brave. Because "is more likely to resist magical fear" isn't how we define bravery.

Except they don't claim to have supernatural luck. Go back and read their entry in the PHB or in Mordenkainen's. Nowhere is the idea of supernatural luck presented. Luckiness, sure, but not supernatural luck.

In fact, here's the beginning paragraphs from Mordy's:



So what we see here is a halfling who fell off a cliff and managed to get caught by a root. Maybe the halfling rolled a 1 on their Athletics check, rerolled, and got a success. Or maybe they rolled well to begin with and called it luck, because the rest of the section talk about superstition meaning halflings will attribute supernatural forces to natural events. Where a human might pass off their own ability to climb of a cliff as physical strength, a halfling credits it to luck.

But in either case, there's nothing supernatural about it. And I don't know why you keep insisting that it is.

Right, it isn't like Mordenkainen's goes on to say anything like "When a halfling trips, slides down a hillside, and lands on a nugget of gold, that's Yondalla turning bad luck into good." (pg 103)

Or that Yondallam who is credited as the source of the halflings luck, was usually given the Protection domain (in both 3rd and 2nd edition) which would strongly imply that halfling luck is literally divine intervention to protect her children.

Or that one of the writers for DnD (Mike Mearls) referred to it as "cosmic luck" and said that it was gifted to them from the Goddess


Man, I just have no idea why I might have gotten the idea that Halflings are supernaturally lucky? I mean, the fact that their lucky is divinely inspired is just normal statistics and physics, right?

Halflings have a trait called Brave. This means that they have advantage where others don't. Why do you not understand this?

Why does no one seem to understand that feeling fear and being shaken by fear doesn't make you a coward? How is this a hard concept? I've literally taught it to 7 year olds in picture books about monsters under the bed. But somehow, this idea that halflings are brave because they can succeed on a save just refuses to bend to the actual definition of bravery.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well... no.

Yuan-ti are VERY different in my games, that's why I didn't include them in my list.
Slaadi will never be playable in my games, they are abominations.
I don't even use Kuo-Toa, like... ever. I keep forgetting they even exist. They aren't even a consideration for me.

Right, so where you draw the line is arbitrary.

Now, I could see having Gnolls, Kenku and Tabaxi sharing a common ancestry. I pretty much have discarded the Kenku's inability to speak except by copying, because it is such a pain to even attempt to role-play. If you can do it, great, but no one I play with is good enough to do it, and they always give up within two or three sessions. And like... Tabaxi are just cat people, unless you are playing in the Forgotten Realms, which I don't. So, Cat-people, Raven-People, and Hyena-people could all be the same "people", perhaps altered by the primal spirits to be closer to a specific animal type. Or descended from awakened animals that were created by ancient druidic rites.

How boring.

I mean, otherwise I have to explain how Raven-People have nothing to do with Hawk-People, who are completely unrelated to Owl-People... which seems weird when I can just make "Bird People" and have them all just exhibit different types of birds.

Again, why would that need any explanation, any more so than humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, and gnomes not being related does?

It isn't like the Tabaxi don't already cover Leopard-People, Panther-People, and Lynx-People.

Not really. They’re one cat-like humanoid species with brown to orange fur and spots or stripes. They kind of resemble leopards or jaguars in some ways, but they aren’t. They’re Tabaxi.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

alrighty another halfling concept.

This guy.

 

[Charlaquin]

"We" haven't established anything about 3%. MaxPerson has pointed out that the chances of rolling two 1s in a row is very, very slim. But you're ignoring that because they can reroll the first 1, they have a second chance to succeed.

It is about a 3% greater chance. Calculate the mean result of a d20 roll, it’s 10.5. Now do the same, but replace the 1 with 10.5, to account for the reroll on a 1. You get a new mean of 10.975. That’s an increase of +0.475, or 2.375%.

Now, that only tells you the increase to the average roll, which isn’t the whole story. Like with advantage exact increase on any given roll will depend on what number you need to roll on the d20 to succeed. But calling it “about a 3% boost” is in the right ballpark, same as we say advantage is “about +5 on the roll”.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Right, so where you draw the line is arbitrary.

No. I mean, I guess it is arbitrary that I don't do anything with Kuo-Toa, but Yuan-Ti being formerly, maybe human before devouring the flesh and blood of one of the world serpents to save their people from extinction, then procceeding to develop a culture of ritual cannabalism to try and reform the dead god within their own flesh as thanks for perserving their people from catastrophe is not arbitrary at all.

I just didn't feel like typing all their lore.

And Slaadi are Abominations from the Far Realms. In actuality, I've changed them significantly into an Empire bent on finding magic to fuel their horrid transformations and power their civilization to help them fight against the other Far Realm threats like the Illithid Hive Mind and the Existence that is the Deep Father. They aren't a playable race, so I didn't include them

How boring.

Thank you for insulting me, may I have another? Can't get too many internet people insulting me for my preferences. I like anime too, if you need more ammo.

Again, why would that need any explanation, any more so than humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, and gnomes not being related does?

Who says I've never explained why dwarves, humans, elves and gnomes aren't related?

Dwarves were forged by Moradin as a betrothal gift to his future wife.

Elves are escaped hunting prey from the Feywild, whose gods are the great heroes who led them to freedom.

Gnomes were once part of the Slaadi, til Garl Glittergold found magic, accidentally created the Gnomes, and fled to a beautiful world, where the forged their souls so that this material plane with its infinite wonder compared to the black endless void they once knew was their heaven.

Humans escaped from a dying world and don't know their origins anymore.

I explain where the races come from all the time.

Not really. They’re one cat-like humanoid species with brown to orange fur and spots or stripes. They kind of resemble leopards or jaguars in some ways, but they aren’t. They’re Tabaxi.

I know they aren't exactly the same as leopards and jaguars, but they can be trivially reskinned by literally just adjusting their fur color and head shape, things that never actually matter in the game.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Dwarven armor is supposed to be better qaulity, but that doesn't mean I've ever seen dwarves depicted as "the race that wears armor" because... humans and elves wear armor too. And Elven armor is also special and cool. They also blacksmith weapons and tools, but they aren't the only weapon or tool using race.

But, aha, they don't reduce speed by wearing armor! That's different. But, hmmm, looking at the rules, most people don't have their speed reduced by wearing armor. My half-elf paladin wearing full plate never had his speed reduced. So where does this rule apply? Digging into it, your speed is reduced by 10 ft if you don't have the proper strength. AHA! So, it isn't that dwarves are particularly good with armor, it is that dwarves are stocky and strong and able to move well under heavy loads. THAT is something you could claim, but "they wear armor"... isn't.



"being better at a specific skill" =/= "is [Blank]"

An Owlin has a +2 dexterity, which helps them use daggers. That does not make Owlin "Dagger Masters" any more than it makes them "stealthy" Or maybe all Halflings are Duelists? After all, the rapier was a common dueling sword, and halflings are better with a rapier than... well, some races.



I'm not particularly interested in a trip down 50 years of mechanics. Let's look at 5e, we can even say "5e when the PHB was published"

Stout halflings got that dex and... that's about it for stealth abilities. This made them good as rogues... and fighters, and rangers, decent bards and barbarians, clerics, warlocks... You know, since Dexterity is kind of good for everyone, they could, in theory, have been anything.

Now, yes, Lightfoots were very good rogues. As were wood elves, high elves, half-elves, humans, and Forest gnomes.

But since I can keep making lists of everyone else, it seems like "halflings are the stealthy race" still is falling apart. You can make them stealthy, sure, but it doesn't seem to define their race in a way that isn't matched by (at a minimum) two of the other "core" races. Humans and Elves.

So now we're going with..if you aren't the only race with a benefit, that benefit is not noticeable for your race. Is this the Highlander school of racial characteristics? And we're including humans as a measuring stick??

You hold up humans and go "look, they can do it to, so your race thing must not be very distinctive". You do this without acknowledging that Humans can be the stealthy race, the perceptive race, the tough race, the educated race, etc. (Almost like their hallmark is adaptability and variety rather than any one specialization).

Let's take your argument to its natural conclusion,

• Humans can get "observant", elves aren't perceptive anymore
• Humans can get "skilled" or "prodigy" dwarves aren't crafters and half-elves are not skillful, half orcs aren't menacing.
• Humans can get "magic initiate" elves and gnomes are no longer magical
• Humans can get "eldritch adept" no race with darvision is associated with the dark anymore
• Humans can get one of the armor fests or "weapon master" no race has any tradition of arms or armor

We could go on, or we could step back and realize that:

1. One race being good at/known for a thing does not mean that other races can't be good at/known for that thing, and,
2. Humans are poor references for racial distinctiveness, and probably shouldn't be used that way.

Circling over to elven craft goods. If you consider the fancy boots and cloaks they make , and that the one type of armor they make is medium armor (no stealthy penalty y'all).. where might you guess one of their focuses is as a race? Wait..and a +2 to dex..and a subrace with stealth mechanics..hmmm.. now that is interesting.

Now let's circle back to dwarves and read the speed thing again..

"Your speed cannot be reduced by heavy armor" (PHB)

If my dwarf has an 8 strength, as your stereotypical "stocky strong" guy does, do they move slower in heavy plate? Referring above..that would be a negative.

Do other 8 strength characters take a speed penalty for wearing heavy armor?

"If the  Armor table shows “Str 13” or “Str 15” in the Strength column for an armor type, the armor reduces the wearer’s speed by 10 feet unless the wearer has a  Strength score equal to or higher than the listed score." (PHB)

8<13<15... so I guess they do take that penalty and move slower.

Is an 8 strength dwarf stronger than other 8 strength characters?

"Strength: the quality or state of being physically strong" (Dictionary)

..and.. 8 strength=8 strength..sooo..no, they are not.

Hmm..equal strength scores..strength equals being strong..one race can wear the armor better than the other..the one who wears the armor gets smith's tools proficiency and potentially an armor proficiency..smith's tools are used to make armor..and armor proficiency helps you wear armor..

Yep. Guess dwarves are just stronger than their strength score somehow..no other way to explain it.

It's like 1+1= potato.

When comparing race mechanics, we compare race mechanics to each other and think about how they impact races' reputations relative to each other. Advantages provided by one race are compared to advantages provided by others. If your racial feature is better, it stands to reason that it's something your race is good at and perhaps known for. A particular character may or may not be a good exemplar of that reputation depending on whether you lean into or away from those features.

To turn it around..

During the last great halfling thread (or maybe the one before), you made the case that gnomes are great illusionists. How do the mechanics support this? Well one gnomes subrace..one..can cast the minor illusion cantrip. When I say halflings are stealthy..The amount of extrapolation I am engaging in is the same as what you have done for gnomes. It is directly symmetrical.

I have no issue with accepting that gnomes are known for being illusionists despite the paucity of mechanical support for such a contention. Why are you fighting back so hard on halflings being known for being stealthy?

 

[Charlaquin]

No. I mean, I guess it is arbitrary that I don't do anything with Kuo-Toa, but Yuan-Ti being formerly, maybe human before devouring the flesh and blood of one of the world serpents to save their people from extinction, then procceeding to develop a culture of ritual cannabalism to try and reform the dead god within their own flesh as thanks for perserving their people from catastrophe is not arbitrary at all.

I just didn't feel like typing all their lore.

And Slaadi are Abominations from the Far Realms. In actuality, I've changed them significantly into an Empire bent on finding magic to fuel their horrid transformations and power their civilization to help them fight against the other Far Realm threats like the Illithid Hive Mind and the Existence that is the Deep Father. They aren't a playable race, so I didn't include them

Right, but there’s no reason any animal people shouldn’t have just as deep and complex lore. It’s arbitrary that you decide certain animal-people deserve unique lore and others should just be lumped together.

Thank you for insulting me, may I have another? Can't get too many internet people insulting me for my preferences. I like anime too, if you need more ammo.

I wasn’t calling you boring, I was saying having gnolls, kenku, and Tabaxi all be the same race with the same lore is boring.

Who says I've never explained why dwarves, humans, elves and gnomes aren't related?

Dwarves were forged by Moradin as a betrothal gift to his future wife.

Elves are escaped hunting prey from the Feywild, whose gods are the great heroes who led them to freedom.

Gnomes were once part of the Slaadi, til Garl Glittergold found magic, accidentally created the Gnomes, and fled to a beautiful world, where the forged their souls so that this material plane with its infinite wonder compared to the black endless void they once knew was their heaven.

Humans escaped from a dying world and don't know their origins anymore.

I explain where the races come from all the time.

Great, so why not explain where various animal people come from too?

I know they aren't exactly the same as leopards and jaguars, but they can be trivially reskinned by literally just adjusting their fur color and head shape, things that never actually matter in the game.

Any race can be trivially reskinned, that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve just as full and rich lore as any other.

 

[Mecheon]

I mean, otherwise I have to explain how Raven-People have nothing to do with Hawk-People, who are completely unrelated to Owl-People... which seems weird when I can just make "Bird People" and have them all just exhibit different types of birds. It isn't like the Tabaxi don't already cover Leopard-People, Panther-People, and Lynx-People.

I mean… Not really.

As Mecheon, animal nerd that I am, if you had a raven and a hawk and an owl sharing the same details I’d be making Words about it. Ravens are not anywhere close to raptors, and the traits we associate with hawks are far from those of owls.

Frankly Tabaxi shouldn’t be able to represent lynxes. I hard-cap them at jungle and desert associated felidae. I honestly wouldn’t even give them jaguar despite their history as that burst of speed doesn’t fit jaguars at all. Merging these together just loses their individual flavour

I mean, strewth, I’ve been arguing we expand bakemono into at least 3 seperate races because it’s lacking “turn into a teapot” or “control ghostly fire” traits to actually properly represent tanuki or kitsune