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.

the-land-of-the-hobbits-6314749_960_720.jpg

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?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Not really. They’re brave so they have a feature that means they’ll save against fear more than others. Which supports them being brave. They are lucky an so they don’t tend to have x
My point is power and fantastic impact.

Brave and Lucky as so weak they might as well be ribbon abilities.

Because of this and an anti-adventurous base culture means many DMs and World builders struggle to integrate halfling into their worlds.

Which then begs the question should halflings remain in the outsider gray area or be altered for easier use?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


My point is power and fantastic impact.

Brave and Lucky as so weak they might as well be ribbon abilities.
Whilst brave is worthless (on a par with elemental resistances - also worthless), Lucky is popular because its fun, not powerful. Although it's not as weak as "5%" appears. If your chance of success is very high, you may be in the situation where you can only fail on a 1, in which case Lucky makes success almost certain. If you can only fail on a 1 or 2, Lucky halves the chance of failing. It's more a case of protection from bad luck than it is good luck. And the more times you throw the dice (e.g. lots of attack rolls) the more likely it is to come up. You don't see people complaining critical hits are worthless do you? Lucky is a reverse critical.
Because of this and an anti-adventurous base culture means many DMs and World builders struggle to integrate halfling into their worlds.
There is no need for them to be integrated into anything. They are in the book to be player characters, not socio-economic building blocks.
Which then begs the question should halflings remain in the outsider gray area or be altered for easier use?
What's the difference between altering them and creating a new race?
 


Whilst brave is worthless, Lucky is popular because its fun, not powerful. Although it's not as weak as "5%" appears. If your chance of success is very high, you may be in the situation where you can only fail on a 1, in which case Lucky makes success almost certain. If you can only fail on a 1 or 2, Lucky halves the chance of failing. It's more a case of protection from bad luck than it is good luck. And the more times you throw the dice (e.g. lots of attack rolls) the more likely it is to come up. You don't see people complaining critical hits are worthless do you? Lucky is a reverse critical.
Critical hits have guaranteed effects. You Roll a 20, autosuceed, and deal bonus damage.

Lucky is not auto success. You rol a 1l, reroll to a 6, womp womp still fail. Lucky is worse because of bounded accuracy because a reroll unto anything under an 9 is a still likely a fail. It takes a 1 in 20 to trigger then a 12 in 20 to work. That's 3%.

It takes 33 1d20 rolls for Lucky to trigger AND turn a failure to success.

There is no need for them to be integrated into anything. There are in the book to be player characters, not socio-economic building blocks.
The races in the PHB are meant to be found as NPCs.

And PC integration in the setting is a major part of player engagement. I find that player with attachments to the setting tend to be more engaged and least likely to tune out. Taking race out the picture takes it out as an option.

What's the difference between altering them and creating a new race?
Altering is adjusting the sliders.
Creating a new race is creating new sliders.

We need to turn Halfling up to 11. It's currently at a 3 when every other race is at 7 minimum.
 

My point is power and fantastic impact.

Brave and Lucky as so weak they might as well be ribbon abilities.
Neither are especially weak. Lucky especially is great.
Because of this and an anti-adventurous base culture
What. Are you joking? I’ve literally disapproved this claim in past discussions with you. They PHB explicitly gives them a culture that helps create adventurers. Whole communities of halflings live nomadically, per the phb. It’s common young adults to go on walkabout, basically. They teach their kids using the stories of the adventuresome members of the community.

Not only is all that in direct conflict with you claim, but even if they did have an “anti-adventure culture” (which they demonstrably do not), that wouldn’t mean anything to thier place as a PC race. Many settings don’t assume that adventurers are common at all! Many stories start with all or some party members being reluctant adventurers.
means many DMs and World builders struggle to integrate halfling into their worlds.
Okay, other than 3 people here on enworld, I have never seen anyone talk about struggling with this.
Which then begs the question should halflings remain in the outsider gray area or be altered for easier use?
None of that is true, so the question is nonsensical, as it assumes the above incorrect assertions.
 

4th Ed dropped Gnomes as a core race. Sure 6th Ed could do it again.

Halflings are to tied to the Tolkien-ness of the game and will never be dropped. Like Dwarves and Elves.
 

IMC some halfling have taken over parts of cities. So you have building built only to welcome small people. Some bars will have one table of the talls. Near the door. And with not good service.
Kenders are the only race which survive due to author, mom, and dm said so. With their borrowing problem, any kender travelling outside kender lands would be shot on sight and the adventuring group fined for the number of arrows used to kill it.
 

4th Ed dropped Gnomes as a core race. Sure 6th Ed could do it again.

Halflings are to tied to the Tolkien-ness of the game and will never be dropped. Like Dwarves and Elves.
They did remove Gnomes, but they were quick to bring them back because there was a lot of hubbub about it. Gnomes. Just let that sink in. The 4e developers straight up explained that the Gnome's lore and niche was weak and poorly defined, which is why they were not in the PHB.

And a lot of people got upset about it. I don't think they will ever remove a race from a PHB again, in fact, that's why they made the fact that every race that was ever in a PHB would be in the 5e PHB a selling point for 5e. Most D&D fans don't like losing their sacred cows, even if they don't ever use them!
 

On reflection, most of these objections and problems cited in the article (and in the responses to the article) just don't resonate with me. It's take a lot more effort and contrivances to integrate goblin and kobold PCs into a game sensibly than halflings. I really don't have any difficulties with halflings or ghomes, and they've both been well-represented in my games over the last 30 years. Halfings might be derived from Tolkien, but they're not hobbits any more and most of that baggage is gone.

I do admit to having an aversion to the traditional "monsters" as PCs. I'll work with players who want to use them, but I don't like them much.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top