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]

No. When you are brave, you advance and do what needs to be done despite being afraid. A frightened individual in D&D literally cannot do that. I can find no definition of bravery that involves falling victim to fear to such a great degree that you literally cannot move forward towards it at all. So yes, "brave."

So, six seconds of being frozen in terror, and you are no longer brave. Or maybe twelve seconds.

I disagree, full throatedly and without reservation. You simply don't understand what bravery is, if you think a bare few seconds of terror can remove it from a person.

So you're inventing things and ignoring the fact that there is literally nothing that a halfling can re-roll with the luck ability that doesn't involve an action of some sort on the part of the halfling. And before you say, "But actions are only in combat," they aren't. There are actions in D&D like, "I climb the wall" or "I resist the vampire's gaze," and then there are Actions in combat like, "I take the attack action." All of those are actions in D&D that by RAW get narrated in the fiction as luck if the luck re-reroll is successful.

So what. They don't have to be lucky on more rolls than that in order to be lucky.

They aren't supposed to feel or be lucky "ALL THE TIME." We know that from the lore.

So now my position that I've held this entire time and been trying to discuss this entire time is "inventing" things and "ignoring" the mechanics. The mechanics that I keep reminding people, are not what I'm trying to talk about.

So, to reiterate my position again. If a halfling is supposed to be supernaturally lucky, to the point they are depicted in fiction, then they need to be lucky when not acting. Not every second of every day, but an example in the text of the dnd rulebooks is walking down a hill, tripping, and landing on a gold nugget. Now, I don't know about your games Max, but I don't have people roll to walk. I also follow the RAW rules and don't have them roll to climb a wall or a tree or a cliffside.

Now, maybe for you the 3% of the time you re-roll into a success feels very impactful. But, as I stated, in my experience, the halfling doesn't feel lucky in play, not to the point where their defining trait is their luck. To fix this, and have them feel lucky to the player, every few sessions I would have to take narrative control and force the halfling's luck into the narrative, even when the halfling doesn't roll. Say, for example, there is an ambush and the enemies first arrow misses the halfling because they are in full plate with a shield. With any character I would describe the arrow shattering on their armor, but for the halfling, would I need to make it about the halfling's luck? Because, in traditional literature, not getting shot during an ambush is considered lucky. As is getting shot, and not actually getting hurt, like the bible or silver flask in the chest pocket. So, while a normal character might get downed and then roll a 20 and spring back to their feet in a show of grit and determination, if the halfling does it, was it halfling luck?

This is what I am talking about. The narrative of "supernaturally lucky" insists on being forced into the world, and if the DM doesn't do that, then the halfling doesn't actually feel lucky. They feel like any other character in the game.

Your position doesn't matter to what I just said, though. You've claimed that halflings are not luckier than other races. I've proven that to be objectively wrong. You've claimed that they aren't braver than other races. I've also proven that to be objectively wrong. You've claimed that halfling luck doesn't appear in the fiction. I've shown that to be untrue unless the DM is acting in bad faith.

1. halflings as a race are objectively luckier than other races as evidenced by their luck re-roll. Your lucky friend who never used it is not a counter example, as one halfling is not the race.
2. RAW requires the DM to narrate successful luck re-rolls as being lucky in the fiction. Failing to do so is a violation of both RAW and the social contract, as the social contract requires the DM not to go out of his way to screw over character concepts. It's an act of bad faith.
3. The brave ability makes halfling PCs braver than non-halflings, because they will fail fewer saves that impose the frightened condition. Other PCs can be brave. Halflings get all of that PLUS more saves. They are objectively braver as a PC race than the other PC races.
4. Class is irrelevant, since whatever class another PC is, halflings can also be that class and get all the same bonuses provided, making race the determiner as to which race is braver.

So, you've come in to argue against my position, by first stating my position doesn't matter.

I had an earlier post, I think with Faolyn, where I said something to the effect of, you are confusing a mechanic existing, to it being meaningful.

Sure, the halfling is 3% more likely to succeed on something, assuming their die and rolling surface is perfectly balanced and aligned. Of course, if it isn't, then they aren't. That is a true, objective mechanic. It isn't meaningfully impactful. A 3% difference is a literal margin of error. And, actually, yes, if a player who doesn't roll a 1 plays a halfling... they are not lucky enough to have that halfling narrative of being supernaturally lucky. The player's luck overrides your objectively true mechanic, and buries it away where no one is going to notice it.

Failing the frightend condition does not make you a coward. Succeeding on the frightened condition does not make you brave. The inability of people to understand this boggles me.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I wouldn't get too much into the philosophical meaning of fear, bravery, etc.

The game has a condition that makes people scared. Halflings get some resistance against that. They don't get all jittery when scared. If some game calls that "bravery" - I'm not gonna quibble about it. DMs, players, etc. are free to call it something else. No one's gonna enforce the name of the mechanic.

But that is literally what I've been trying to discuss. Because I've seen it have effects on people's games.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The only way a halfling can be considered brave, is if their name is Matt Murdock.
I don't make the rules. If you have an issue with it, take it up with Frank.

 

[Cadence]

No. Because "not affected by fear" =/= Bravery. That isn't what the term means, that isn't why we use it, that isn't the concept. But because they keep using that narrative and tying it to this mechanic... that's the message people are getting. The bravery = "not being affected by fear" and that is a problem in my opinion, because it ignores what bravery actually is.

Standing up to fear is at least a part of being brave in the general dictionary definition.

OED under brave has:

Courage in the OED includes:

-----

In popular usage, the first google response to "bravery vs. fear" just now was:

This looks pretty close to what being able to save against the frightened effect in 5e:

 

[Chaosmancer]

I didn't say running away. I said not advancing on the danger. Your "brave" PC is literally too scared to go up to the danger and confront his fear. He's staying back shaking too hard to even attack straight(disadvantage).

I've also said that bravery is often confronting your fear and advancing to do what needs to be done anyway. PCs can be afraid and show bravery. That's represented through roleplay when the PC and/or player is afraid of a given monster, but stays to fight anyway. It's not represented by failing a save, being frightened, and then attacking mostly ineffectually from far away. You're describing the guy in the movie who is so terrified that he throws something at the slasher or monster without looking and misses badly, or occasionally gets lucky and hits. That's not brave.

You realize this is almost literally describing soldiers who flinch on the battlefield and miss a shot as not being brave, right? Like... you are literally making my point for me about why calling succeeding on these saves bravery is bad for the narrative of the game.

 

[Gammadoodler]

You realize this is almost literally describing soldiers who flinch on the battlefield and miss a shot as not being brave, right? Like... you are literally making my point for me about why calling succeeding on these saves bravery is bad for the narrative of the game.

Or alternatively, that the soldiers with them who do not flinch away from danger and shoot effectively are more brave than the soldier who flinched away.

Almost like there's a range of capability rather than a toggle.

 

[Maxperson]

So, six seconds of being frozen in terror, and you are no longer brave. Or maybe twelve seconds.

During that time period? No. Bravery is something that comes and goes. Nobody is constantly brave, since there's nothing to be constantly brave against.

The soldier that advances under machine fire to save a wounded comrade is brave. That same soldier later shopping for Cornflakes at the local supermarket is not brave right then. He's shopping.

So now my position that I've held this entire time and been trying to discuss this entire time is "inventing" things and "ignoring" the mechanics. The mechanics that I keep reminding people, are not what I'm trying to talk about.

Your position is apparently tilting at windmills.

So, to reiterate my position again. If a halfling is supposed to be supernaturally lucky, to the point they are depicted in fiction, then they need to be lucky when not acting. Not every second of every day, but an example in the text of the dnd rulebooks is walking down a hill, tripping, and landing on a gold nugget. Now, I don't know about your games Max, but I don't have people roll to walk. I also follow the RAW rules and don't have them roll to climb a wall or a tree or a cliffside.

No, they don't need to be lucky when not acting, though I wouldn't be against it if the DM decided to add extras. He doesn't have to, though. The feat is sufficient for an individual halfling to be luck in the fiction.

You're reading waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much into the lore right up than is actually there. There's nothing in this paragraph that implies that halfling luck is common place and they go around tripping into nuggets every few feet. It's simply stating that when luck does happen, they credit Yondalla with it.

"To the halflings, Yondalla is responsible for the spring in their step and the bubbly excitement they feel from knowing that luck is on their side. When a pumpkin grows to enormous size or a garden yields twice as many carrots as usual, credit goes to Yondalla. When a halfling trips, slides down a hillside, and lands on a nugget of gold, that's Yondalla turning bad luck into good."

Now, maybe for you the 3% of the time you re-roll into a success feels very impactful. But, as I stated, in my experience, the halfling doesn't feel lucky in play, not to the point where their defining trait is their luck. To fix this, and have them feel lucky to the player, every few sessions I would have to take narrative control and force the halfling's luck into the narrative, even when the halfling doesn't roll. Say, for example, there is an ambush and the enemies first arrow misses the halfling because they are in full plate with a shield. With any character I would describe the arrow shattering on their armor, but for the halfling, would I need to make it about the halfling's luck?

No, but you could make it about their luck. That's entirely up to you. It's not needed, but could be very fun for the player.

This is what I am talking about. The narrative of "supernaturally lucky" insists on being forced into the world, and if the DM doesn't do that, then the halfling doesn't actually feel lucky. They feel like any other character in the game.

Feel is incredibly subjective. Perhaps you don't feel lucky when you get luck via the halfling luck re-roll, but I do. The DM isn't required to do anything more than narrate the luck that happens from the racial ability.

Sure, the halfling is 3% more likely to succeed on something, assuming their die and rolling surface is perfectly balanced and aligned. Of course, if it isn't, then they aren't. That is a true, objective mechanic. It isn't meaningfully impactful. A 3% difference is a literal margin of error.

You keep saying that, but it's not accurate. If the margin is 50% for a normal PC, then you will see percentages ranging from 47%-53%, because that's the margin of error for 50%. However, the halfling is at 53%, so his margin of error is 50%-56%, which is objectively higher the normal PC. It's also only really for polls and such were you have margins of error. There's no error with halfling luck. The halfling really is 3% better.

And, actually, yes, if a player who doesn't roll a 1 plays a halfling... they are not lucky enough to have that halfling narrative of being supernaturally lucky. The player's luck overrides your objectively true mechanic, and buries it away where no one is going to notice it.

How does the player's experience remove the luck from the halfling race? This is a racial bonus, not a PC individual one.

 

[Maxperson]

You realize this is almost literally describing soldiers who flinch on the battlefield and miss a shot as not being brave, right?

No. No it's not even close to that.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The Tolkien family would like me to remind you that Tolkien sometimes referred to hobbits as halflings in the books.

True. Just don’t say so too loudly or halflings will be removed from D&D by order of Tolkien’s estate.

 

[James Gasik]

The WotC legal department requires me to remind you that those were hobbits, which are different and legally distinct from halflings.