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]

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.

Ah wonderful, a mind reader. Always fun to discuss things with them. You know what card I picked up to?

How about, instead of telling me what my intent is, you listen to what I say my intent it.

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

Most people haven't even addressed my point, instead explaining the mechanics of the game to me. So yes, people who aren't making arguments in regards to my point aren't getting those arguments seriously addressed. I provided one example, because it was easy to find and post. That doesn't mean it is literally the only example that exists. But I don't feel like trying to track down 50 years of novels and comics to try and lay out every single example.

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.

WOW, it is almost like I said that exact same thing, and was talking about that exact thing! Now, can we discuss my actual points about how that can be problematic and how that is a burden on the DM that no other race imposes? Or do you want to do another round of telling me how the lucky mechanics work before telling me that they aren't the narrative, and if you want the narrative then you need to add that in extra? I mean, I've only gone around three times, what's a dozen more.

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.

I was showing a narrative example of halfling luck. One that has appeared in multiple media. You are obsessing over the exact example and not seeing it as AN EXAMPLE.

Like, honestly, do you think halflings have been depicted as unusually lucky in only a single comic in all of DnD history?

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.

And here it is again. If the narrative isn't working, it is the fault of the players and the DM, it can't be that the narrative is flawed.

So, my human knight has to be willing to scared of ghosts to show-off how brave the halfling rogue is? Because my roleplaying needs to be dictated by other people's racial choices? As a DM, if the human players aren't acting properly scared, should I tell them that their characters would absolutely be scared by the situation, because they aren't halflings? I believe that you said that was bad to do if I was forcing an elf to aloof, but forcing a human to be scared so the halfling can be brave is fine?

Because I don't care about the NPCs, their narrative is completely at my discretion as the DM, but the players are going to be paying attention to the other players. And the halfling can't feel incredibly brave if everyone is incredibly brave.

And on the luck, you are literally advocating for the thing I refered to as the problem. Having good fortune befall the halfling while making sure good fortune does not befall the other players. This is a limitation on the DM's narration that only exists when we start talking about halflings. And sure, the halfling finding an extra copper in the road isn't going to ruin the game, but halfling luck is supposed to be consistent, meaning it isn't just going to be one time finding a copper, it is going to be likely something every other gaming session, and eventually, that adds up to special treatment. Which is not something we should be advocating for happening, and can be a problem in the game when it happens.

You are literally sitting here, telling me that the solution is to engage in the behavior I'm calling out as a problem.

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.

And when you are dealing with narrative structures, NAMES MATTER. How else would I end up in a discussion where you are borderline advocating for people to change how they role-play their characters based on one person's racial choice?

Mask of the Wild doesn't describe a personality trait that the majority of the adventuring party has. It is a poetic name, but it isn't used as a descriptor. Bravery is different. You would think the very fact this conversation is happening might be enough to wonder if the name is poorly chosen for the narrative at the table. After all, if the dragonborn's breath weapon was called "flatulence" then it doesn't matter if the mechanics don't change, the name has made them a joke.

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.

Right, because anti-magic fields are known not to have obvious and clear problems.

Hey, have you ever run up a 16 story building in nothing but your bare feet in six seconds? Completely not a supernatural feat, because Monks can do that in an anti-magic field.

And obviously curing grievous wounds that were bleeding profusely with a single touch is not supernatural. Paladins can do that in an anti-magic field.

Hey, ever get so angry that the ghosts of your ancestors show up and stop arrows from hitting your friends? What a tuesday, completely not a supernatural effect, because barbarians can do that in an anti-magic field.

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.

Right, I just need to be more skilled and do the thing I'm calling out as a problem, because that's the solution to the problem.

I mean, I'm sure that after a session of the halfling falling and taking no damage (which everyone else knows they would have taken) and the session before that the halfling being the only one not splashed with mud, the players will be overjoyed that they are able to continue the quest solely because the local magistrate is interested in the halfling. You can't possibly have hurt feelings or feelings of resentment as one player consistently gets special treatment. I mean, it isn't like it is affecting the mechanics after all. And we all know everyone only plays for the mechanics, not the story.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Sure. You're missing that the soldier who missed because he flinched just rolled low and the flinch was the narration for why he missed. That soldier was not suffering from a supernatural frightened condition that prevents him from moving towards the source of fear.

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?

Once you understand that bravery isn't a constant thing, it's easier to understand how a PC can be brave one round, but not the next due to a form of mind control.

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.

I decided to be nice and not call you out for all of your Strawmen. Do you really want to go down this road?

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.

The novels and comics aren't relevant to this discussion. They are not D&D. D&D is the game with the rules, mechanics and such, not a medium that is tied to the power of plot. In books and comics, fully healthy dragons can die by accident when a rock fall on them. In D&D they can't.

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.

If you're looking to inherently flawed sources for how things should happen in the game, you should probably reconsider your position.

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.

Depends. When it comes to something like a +1 to hit helping you hit one additional time every 5-10 combats, no, you aren't going to notice that 5%. Nothing is around to tell you which hit is extra or in which combat it happened. When it comes to re-rolling a 1 due to halfling luck, you'd have to be brain dead not to notice that 1 turn into a success. You just rolled both numbers! So yes, you'll notice it all 3% of the time.

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.

I get it, and I've been trying to be nice and calm with my discussions with you, rather then being as contentions as our interactions used to be. That's why I decided not to call out any strawmen and just respond to what you are saying.

 

[lingual]

Stories, movies, comics, etc. do not rely on randomness and dice rolls. You can't really expect a game system to replicate that. That's up to the DM. In some media, the cute things (like halflings) never die.

 

[Stormonu]

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.

Yeah, it's a case the mechanics aren't as strong as some would like. But, that's an issue with bounded accuracy. For example, with halfling bravery your choices range from + PB to save vs. fear condition, advantage or immunity. I'd probably have gone with immunity (it is just one condition, and elves get it to sleep), but a lot of DMs would have likely balked at how many creatures that shut down ("Immune to Dragon fear? Not in my game, ya kender!!!!")

 

[Lanefan]

why should halfing get to be a phb small race? goblins are more popular, kobolds have something going on,

Goblins and Kobolds are IMO monsters, not PC species; and thus deserve no space in the PH.

 

[Gammadoodler]

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.

Two things I can't stand when I get online to go pretend to be a drunken gnomish martial artist with my friends..

1.Silliness
2.Nonsense

D&D is not a game to be trifled with.

 

[Minigiant]

Two things I can't stand when I get online to go pretend to be a drunken gnomish martial artist with my friends..

1.Silliness
2.Nonsense

D&D is not a game to be trifled with.

The gnome's silly powers are strong.

No one with gonna mess with the buff clown.

This is why wizards are eccentric. They become powerful enough to stop caring about must and stop fighting the arcane madness.

 

[Faolyn]

Ah wonderful, a mind reader. Always fun to discuss things with them. You know what card I picked up to?

How about, instead of telling me what my intent is, you listen to what I say my intent it.

I don't need to read your mind when I read your posts.

Most people haven't even addressed my point, instead explaining the mechanics of the game to me. So yes, people who aren't making arguments in regards to my point aren't getting those arguments seriously addressed. I provided one example, because it was easy to find and post. That doesn't mean it is literally the only example that exists. But I don't feel like trying to track down 50 years of novels and comics to try and lay out every single example.

If they're not addressing your point, why are you even answering it? Why not just say "I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about this other thing?"

Instead, when people have said "Lucky does this thing," you then go on to talk about how it's not not a good rule.

WOW, it is almost like I said that exact same thing, and was talking about that exact thing! Now, can we discuss my actual points about how that can be problematic and how that is a burden on the DM that no other race imposes? Or do you want to do another round of telling me how the lucky mechanics work before telling me that they aren't the narrative, and if you want the narrative then you need to add that in extra? I mean, I've only gone around three times, what's a dozen more.

If roleplaying a halfling's luck is a burden, then why are you DMing? It's not like it's something you'd have to do multiple times a session. But presumably you do specific RP moments with each of your players based on their backgrounds, right? So why wouldn't you occasionally do a bit of halfling luck when you RP with with a halfling player?

Or do you not RP anything with any character that isn't covered by a mechanic?

And here it is again. If the narrative isn't working, it is the fault of the players and the DM, it can't be that the narrative is flawed.

Well, no, because the narrative is up to the DM and players. The game covers the mechanics.

DM: The goblin attacks and rolls a 17. That hits, so it does 5 damage.

Player: I attack the goblin and roll a 15. That hits, so I do 7 damage.

And so on. That's what the game does. It's up to the DM and players to actually make those mechanics sound interesting.

DM: The goblin swings its serrated, filthy blade at you and rolls a 17. You can feel it shred your skin as it hits for 5 damage.

Player: Ouch! Man, I hope I don't catch something from that. I hit it with my mace as hard as I can. I roll a 15, and I know that hits. I do 7 crushing-its-face-in damage.

DM: The goblin reels back a step, badly wounded by the force of your blow.

At most, you can expect D&D to have suggestions on how to do the latter, but it's up to you guys to actually do it. Unless you think the books to have "d100 Halfling Luck Effect" tables?

So, my human knight has to be willing to scared of ghosts to show-off how brave the halfling rogue is? Because my roleplaying needs to be dictated by other people's racial choices? As a DM, if the human players aren't acting properly scared, should I tell them that their characters would absolutely be scared by the situation, because they aren't halflings? I believe that you said that was bad to do if I was forcing an elf to aloof, but forcing a human to be scared so the halfling can be brave is fine?

First off, you are once again forgetting there's a difference between being afraid and being subjected to the frightened condition. They're not the same thing.

Secondly, there is NO ALOOF CONDITION. You are once again confusing a role-playing choice with a game mechanic. A person can role-play being aloof or surly or even afraid with zero mechanical support for that.

Thirdly, are the human and halfling PCs team players? Do you want to work together to improve the game's narrative? If so, then yes, RP your character as being frightened but willing to press on (because you made your save against being frightened) while the halfling continues on without a care in the world (because they also made their saving throw, but are "braver" than humans are). This isn't forcing the human to be scared; this is two players working together to RP racial differences.

I know that when I encounter an effect that puts the frightened condition on me and save against it, I at least try to roleplay being unnerved by it, even if I suffer no mechanical penalties. I do the same when I DM as well: if a PC saves against being frightened, I often tell them that they can feel the fear trying to grab them but they are able to push the worst of it aside. And my players are more than happy to RP that, and have done so even when I haven't said that. I had a player who decided that their character was going to have a full-fledged panic attack because one of their powers backfired (nat 1 on an attack roll) in a way that reminded them of a past trauma they had written into their background. The character wasn't being subjected to the frightened condition; the player RP'd being afraid.

So what is this? You want halflings to be "brave" because of the narrative, but you don't want the narrative to actually reflect the mechanics because then it isn't fair to the other players because it somehow forces them to be less brave, and you don't want to put out any extra effort to make the narrative more interesting. This is why I say it's obvious you just don't like halflings, because nothing is going to make you happy here.

Because I don't care about the NPCs, their narrative is completely at my discretion as the DM, but the players are going to be paying attention to the other players. And the halfling can't feel incredibly brave if everyone is incredibly brave.

And why not? The other players are brave because they overcame their fears. The halfling is brave because they didn't have the fear to begin with.

And again, being afraid is not the same as the frightened condition!

And on the luck, you are literally advocating for the thing I refered to as the problem. Having good fortune befall the halfling while making sure good fortune does not befall the other players. This is a limitation on the DM's narration that only exists when we start talking about halflings. And sure, the halfling finding an extra copper in the road isn't going to ruin the game, but halfling luck is supposed to be consistent, meaning it isn't just going to be one time finding a copper, it is going to be likely something every other gaming session, and eventually, that adds up to special treatment. Which is not something we should be advocating for happening, and can be a problem in the game when it happens.

You are literally sitting here, telling me that the solution is to engage in the behavior I'm calling out as a problem.

Except that you are refusing to actually understand the solution.

Halfling luck--lowercase l-luck--isn't "supposed" to be consistent. It just happens. It's not a mechanic that says the halfling finds a copper on the ground 1/short rest. You can throw it into the game whenever you want to. You can encourage the player to invent their own lucky finds, within some guidelines. You can also provide RP moments that emphasize the elfiness of your elf PCs, the dwarfiness of your dwarf PCs, and the humaness of your human PCs at the same time.

If you actually cared about the narrative, you'd do this.

And when you are dealing with narrative structures, NAMES MATTER. How else would I end up in a discussion where you are borderline advocating for people to change how they role-play their characters based on one person's racial choice?

I'm only suggesting this because you are overly concerned with the name of a trait. Literally nobody in my game that has three halflings, a tiefling, and a half-orc cares one whit about the trait's name or what it means because they are capable of looking past the name. Above, when I talked about the PC having a panic attack? That was one of the halflings (who either chose not to reroll that nat 1 or rolled a second nat 1, can't remember because it was several years ago), because the player is aware of the difference between fear and the frightened condition and who chose to RP it.

Mask of the Wild doesn't describe a personality trait that the majority of the adventuring party has. It is a poetic name, but it isn't used as a descriptor. Bravery is different. You would think the very fact this conversation is happening might be enough to wonder if the name is poorly chosen for the narrative at the table. After all, if the dragonborn's breath weapon was called "flatulence" then it doesn't matter if the mechanics don't change, the name has made them a joke.

Neither Bravery nor Lucky are personality traits. They are the names of traits. You are confusing them with lowercase-b brave and lowercase-l lucky.

Right, I just need to be more skilled and do the thing I'm calling out as a problem, because that's the solution to the problem.

I mean, I'm sure that after a session of the halfling falling and taking no damage (which everyone else knows they would have taken) and the session before that the halfling being the only one not splashed with mud, the players will be overjoyed that they are able to continue the quest solely because the local magistrate is interested in the halfling. You can't possibly have hurt feelings or feelings of resentment as one player consistently gets special treatment. I mean, it isn't like it is affecting the mechanics after all. And we all know everyone only plays for the mechanics, not the story.

If you choose to not have a discussion with your players about the nature of halfling luck and the forms it might take, that's your problem, not the game's and not mine.

 

[Stormonu]

Goblins and Kobolds are IMO monsters, not PC species; and thus deserve no space in the PH.

Maybe that's the only fair way to do races - put humans in the PHB and every other race is in the MM, and the DM can specify which ones fit their campaign world.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Maybe that's the only fair way to do races - put humans in the PHB and every other race is in the MM, and the DM can specify which ones fit their campaign world.

You don't think humans are monsters?