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?

 

[Faolyn]

No, it really isn't. It's a spectacularly failed number considering that halflings are one of the 4 FREE races in the SRD. When tieflings and dragonborn both outperform them by a fairly large margin, that's pretty clear that no one is the right description.

It's a significantly large number. Between borrowing friend's books or getting them to read/copypaste the stats to you, finding the stats online (Roll20 has the all of the PHB races, minus a few subraces, freely available; D&D Beyond seems to have them all, but I only checked a few), and outright piracy, I'd be surprised if anyone was using only the SRD.

Sorry, you misread what I said. The bones that are in the supplements are the things that no one actually cares about. It's the "halfling villages" that are found around Saltmarsh - zero detail, not even shown on the map. Just a single line buried in a random table. That's the kind of bone that no one actually cares about. The supplements are obviously very popular. Sorry, I was unclear there.

How much detail does a halfling village really need? I took a quick look and the book also mentions but fails to go into any detail that I could find (it was a quick look) about human villages and a wood elf enclave. It seems to me that:

(A) that one sentence doesn't take anything away from the adventure and doesn't take up so much room that other "more interesting" things were left out.

(B) that one sentence adds some color to the world, making it contain more than just boring humans as the friendlies.

(C) that one sentence means that if the players are looking for a village to restock at or to spend the night, there are lots of them around so the DM can just say "Sure! You almost missed it because it was small, but the plumes of smoke you see over the next hill lead you to a tiny village populated by halflings," without having to refer to the map to find out if they were close to one.

(D) removing that one line or changing it so they were human villages wouldn't make the adventure better or more interesting in any way.

You had me thinking that these sourcebooks were wasting precious pages on something pointless, when all you were talking about is a single line that you are free to ignore!

But, Birthright isn't. When it does, THEN you have a point. But, there hasn't been so much as a whisper about Birthright, like, ever. So, I'm not really sure why you're bringing it up. Personally, I'm not all that wedded to war forged anyway, so, pick a different option. My point is, let's drop the bottom of the list races and try something new instead of retreading the same boring old crap over and over again that no one actually plays.

Except that you can add those races to the next PHB without taking anything away.

As I mentioned before, the Level Up main book is 650 pages. A lot of those pages are dedicated to things that aren't in o5e, like maneuvers and strongholds. The current o5e PHB is only about 300 or so pages long. The 6e PHB could contain every single race that's currently in 5e, even the ones that are setting-dependant like warforged, reborn, and vedalken, and still be a lot shorter than the current LU Adventurer's Guide.

And 400,000 people is not "no one." Please stop saying that. You are diminishing the interests of nearly half a million people because you don't like their choice, when their choice doesn't affect you at all.

 

[Faolyn]

Yep, I figured as much. You have no idea what I am actually arguing.

Please, find where I said halflings are a terrible PC race in this thread? I'd love to see it.

You mean every single one of your posts? Because no matter what your words are, that's what you're actually saying. Your intent is very clear.

People then dogpiled on, insisting that re-rolling those one's is super impactful and definetly lucky. And they couldn't believe that it wouldn't change the game. So, I showed the math, acknowledged that the mechanics were fine, but the narrative was nothing like it was supposed to be...

And now I get accused of abandoning my own point, because I addressed the points of others. And this is why I didn't want to post my homebrew question back on these forums. I knew I'd get sucked into a discussion like this, and I'd be suffering through these ridiculous arguments again, because I just can't help myself.

Because you are taking one example and saying that proves your entire point while ignoring everything else people have said.

Right, DnD comics can't show the narrative of DnD doesn't match the mechanics of DnD because the comics don't match the mechanics of DnD.
I mean, stopping a breath weapon with a shield is ridiculous right? It isn't like it is one of the most iconic things in fantasy art, to the point that there is a feat called "Shield Master" meant to emulate that narrative.

And now you're getting it! Stopping a breath weapon is narratively appropriate, but not part of the mechanics.

Halfling luck is narratively appropriate, but not part of the mechanics.

The narrative is up to the player and DM. If you want halflings in your game to be lucky, then you, as the player or DM, need to add that to the narrative.

And, we all know halflings weren't created before 5th edition, so seeing their narratives from before then is pointless. I mean, re-rolling an attack roll once per fight is nothing at all like re-rolling when you roll a 1, right?

If you're trying to claim that a comic proves that halflings are supposed to be lucky because it's a D&D comic, then having that comic be written for an edition that didn't have halfling luck in it fails to prove your point. It's like using the original AD&D comics produced by TSR to prove that elves can't be paladins in a WotC-era game.

So, you might say, that the depiction of the narrative of halfling luck isn't represented by the mechanics. Weird, that sounds like what I was saying. Only you seem to think this supports halflings being lucky in the game, like they are said to be in the narratives. Whereas myself, I would say that sounds like this shows that halflings being lucky like they are said to be isn't present at the table, because the mechanics don't support the narrative.

EVERYONE HAS BEEN SAYING THAT THE LUCK ISN'T SUPPORTED BY THE MECHANICS IN THE WAY THAT YOU THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.

If you only include things at your table that are supported by the narrative, that's a you problem. Plenty of DMs are willing to include things that aren't written on your sheets and require a die roll.

Now, see, you misunderstand, because you seem to refuse to accept the words I type out. I fully get that the trait halflings have is passive and is mechanical and has no narrative weight. That's why I keep pointing out that in the narrative, halflings aren't particularly braver than the other races. Especially when you put them in an adventuring party who are going to respond to ghosts by drawing their weapons and readying their spells, instead of running away screaming.

And you're still not getting it.

The narrative is that halflings are luckier and braver than humans. Thus, NPC halflings are always going to be luckier and braver than NPC humans, because they're controlled by the DM how can just declare that to be so. For a PC race, being luckier and braver is represented by a trait that lets you reroll 1s and a trait that gives advantage on saving throws against being frightened.

For the narration to continue with the PCs, the players have to be willing to show that their human characters are shaking with fear but willing to go ahead anyway while their halfling characters are just strolling in, unaffected. And for the DM to have lucky breaks happen to the halfling (or to credit good rolls to halfling luck) and not have the same breaks (and not have good rolls be the result of luck) to the non-halflings.

If the players and DM are not willing to do that, it's not the game's fault. Its the fault of the players and DM.

I'm not trying to say that this is a bad mechanical trait. I'm saying that the narrative is flawed. Deeply flawed since it seems to completely misunderstand what bravery even is, and presents lack of fear as bravery. Which is what I have been saying, over and over and over and over again.

It's a freakin' name. Get over it. It's not trying to present anything but a mechanic.

This is on the level of claiming that Mask of the Wild is badly named because there's no actual masks involved.

You know, then maybe when I started talking about the narrative, everyone shouldn't have jumped up and said "BUT THE TRAITS!!! THE TRAITS PROVE IT!!!" Since the traits seem to have nothing to do with the narrative, which is what I am trying to talk about.

Maybe then you shouldn't have spent so much time trying to disprove that the traits are actually lucky or brave because of only being 3% better or that paladins have the same abilities as halflings and spent more time saying "I'm not talking about the traits." Which, you know, you never actually did. Instead, you tried over and over again to prove that the traits are mechanically bad.

Because, as I have brought up, and I'm sure others have as well, the narration is entirely up to the players and DM.

No, I said those examples proved my point. And then you started talking about death saves.

But yeah, the lore and everything else says it is supernatural, so I'm wrong to think of it as supernatural, because it is up to the DM if it is supernatural. And around and around we go, because you can never admit that I might actually have a point and not just be insane.

The lore doesn't say it's supernatural. The lore says that maybe the gods were involved, or at the least, halflings have a god of luck--which would make sense, since they're a people who put great stock in luck.

More to the point: there's nothing that says halflings stop being lucky in an antimagic field, which says that it's not supernatural.

Yes, it is abundantly clear that you don't understand my position. As I keep explaining it to you and you keep missing the point. You keep telling me the mechanical traits don't effect the narrative, then act like that addresses my points about the narrative.

So, once more. Yes, I understand how the mechanics of the game work. They aren't what I am directly trying to address. I'm trying to address the narrative that people claim is there, and that people refer to the mechanical traits to defend, even when those traits do not support the narrative. I'm not attacking the mechanical traits, heck, I'm not even attacking halflings.

You could have fooled me, considering everything you've said about them.

If truly the only thing you care about is the narrative, then work on your narrative skills.

And as I said, I've given you examples of how to include lucky moments in your game that don't unduly reward the halfling PC and don't punish non-halflings, and you have consistently ignored or mocked them.

-The halfling manages to grab, completely at random, the best apple in the bushel.
- A cart whizzes by, splashing mud all around, but the halfling doesn't get dirty.
-At a carnival, the halfling wins the best prize (equivalent in value to a giant stuffed toy) at a game everyone would swear is rigged.
-At the inn, the cook just happens to have one more serving of the halfling's favorite desert.
-The halfling falls into a river. When they emerge, there's a big ol' fish caught in their shirt, just in time for dinner.
-The PCs want an audience with the local magistrate. You, the DM, had decided that they were going to get that audience, but you narrate it as if the magistrate is particularly interested in hearing news or lore from the halfling's hometown and that's why they granted the audience.
-The halfling fails a climbing roll and falls. You, the DM, know that any damage taken is going to be healed up anyway before the players next get into combat and the fall isn't nearly enough to kill the halfling. So luckily, there's a haycart right under the halfling and they don't take damage; they just have a sore butt for a while.

And so on. It's not up to the game to provide these through mechanics. It's up to you as the DM to come up with these ideas.

 

[Faolyn]

On a point of information here in 4e shields gave you a +2 to your reflex defence as well as AC - and the black dragon's breath weapon was an attack vs reflex. So yes you could block its attack on you by putting your shield in the way (which I find entirely appropriate). But one shotting a dragon didn't happen.

Yeah, but look at that breath weapon. Unless 4e dragons were very different than the way they've been in every other edition, that shield shouldn't have been able to block the entire thing. Everyone around that person should also be affected.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

So, do you often find people talking about how some soldiers are braver than others? Cause.. I don't. People tend to think anyone who marches to war with their life on the line is pretty brave.

 

[Maxperson]

So, do you often find people talking about how some soldiers are braver than others? Cause.. I don't. People tend to think anyone who marches to war with their life on the line is pretty brave.

That's why all soldiers are given a participatory Medal of Honor if they go to war.

 

[Minigiant]

Guys.

The problem isn't that halflimgs are brave or lucky.

It's that the mechanics used for bravery and luck in 5e are terrible and make the halflimgs outlook look silly or nonsensical if you don't fully buy into the concept of the race and their place in a setting.

 

[Gammadoodler]

That's why all soldiers are given a participatory Medal of Honor if they go to war.

Flawlessly executed.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

What if said Halfling is a member of the Green Lantern Corps?

Reminds me of why they started saying Green Lanterns have "the ability to overcome great fear", instead of saying they are fearless. One writer took it way too literally, and said that the ring alters a new GLC recruit's brain so that they are incapable of experiencing fear.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

Really? Because a trained warrior (DnD martial character or soldier) having a few seconds of fear (two to three rounds equals 12 to 18 seconds) but still fires their martial weapon (a bow or a rifle) while fighting for the lives and the lives of their squad, but missing because of the fear (disadvantage).... That really sounds kind of close to exactly the situation at the table. The situation you described as a teenager in a slasher fic running away screaming while throwing anything at hand at the big scary monster and being ineffective.

So, I'm sure you can find some difference between them that I'm missing?

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.

Right, because clearly shopping in the grocery store is the type of thing I'm talking about when discussing combat with your life on the line. Silly me. Sure, maybe a brave person isn't actively being brave when they go shopping, kind of weird to make that sort of distinction though, I mean... you'd imagine they would be brave if the supermarket suddenly broke out into gunfire, so... why make it some sort of bizarre toggle? Oh, right, so that you can defend saying that falling under the frightened condition doesn't make you brave. I guess falling under the sleep condition means you aren't intelligent too, right?

Again, the knots you tie yourself into only strengthen my point that this narrative is doing the game a huge disservice.

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."

Yeah, it doesn't happen every few feet. I shouldn't have... oh wait, never did claim that. Weird. It is almost like you are strawmanning my actual position.

After all, it isn't just the lore in mordenkainen's, it is dungeons and dragons novels and comics and everything else that have constantly told us that halflings have incredible luck, passively, that good things just happen to them without them needing to act. Something which the mechanics do not allow for at all, and something that forcing into the narrative would not help the narrative of the table. In fact, it could legitimately cause problems to do so, if mishandled.

Which is why I've been pushing back on it, which, now that you actually understand what I'm talking about, maybe the discussion can move forward without you calling me a Bad Faith DM.

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.

You literally are quoting me back at me, and not understanding the point.

If a PC is successful 53% of the time... does anyone notice? Does any go "wow, you are just really lucky!" Not in my experience. But 53% is the high end of their potential successes.

What if an average halfling was successful 53% of the time... does anyone notice? Welll... no. They didn't notice it for the random PC, so why would they notice it for the halfling. Sure, the halfling might be 3% more successful than average... but that isn't a meaningful impact, because people are bad at noticing statistics and probabilities over long stretches of the game.

You can harp on about how they are objectively better, but if no one notices, then it doesn't affect the table, and it doesn't lead to them being seen as incredibly lucky. Which will then cause the player to potentially be dissatisfied, they took the halfling because the halfling is supposed to be the "lucky" race, but they aren't feeling very lucky. Their character is in fact, seeming to be completely average. So they might go and talk their DM, who may feel like they need to start narrating extra lucky things happening to the player, that never happen to anyone else, to let the halfling feel lucky, like the game says they should.

Are we following the line of logic? Because I've only laid this out in every post for the last four days. I know I'm getting frustrated and short with people, but it is taking me multiple days of repeating myself to even get back to where I started, and it is incredibly frustrating.

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

Unless you have 100 halfling players sitting at the table, I think the individual player's experience is going to outweigh whatever the race's bonus is writ large across the community.

 

[billd91]

That's why all soldiers are given a participatory Medal of Honor if they go to war.

cough cough campaign ribbons cough
Ahem... excuse me. Got some fruit salad caught in my throat.