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?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A problem that I see with that is that it's highly unlikely that D&D is going to have a brand new "default" setting for 6e. They'll almost certainly stick with the Realms, maybe with Greyhawk. Even if the settings aren't "officially" default like the Realms isn't the "official" setting of 5e, there's a chance that 6e will stick with the 5e trend of setting non-world books in those settings ("Volo's Guide to..." "Mordenkainen's Tome of..."). And halflings have a role in those settings, whether people like it or not; they weren't just added on. Which means that halflings will still be seen as "default," only players won't have the luxury of having their stats conveniently placed in the PHB. And that also means that every setting book published would have to have halfling stats reprinted over and over again because there's no guarantee that a player will have bought every single book put out for that setting.

Removing halflings from the PHB may actually have the effect of making them show up more often. At least now, people can ignore them.

In fact I expect there to be a lot more lineages in the next edition of the PHB. A lineage block occupies less space than the old race blocks for a start! They need to continue to support the traditional tolkienesque settings, whilst also better supporting more diverse settings.

We have had hints that a classic setting is going to be released alongside the 2024 core rules. I expect the new version of the rules to be setting-neutral, with most of the lore moved to the setting book.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't know why I'm doing this, but...

@Chaosmancer, please understand that fear and the Frightened condition are different things.

A character who is afraid of something can move towards the source of their fear. This is being brave.

A character who is subjected to the Frightened condition can't move towards the source of their fear. This isn't being brave or being not brave or being cowardly; it's being under the effects of a game condition that has its own rules that supersede player agency.

If Bob the human fighter comes across an otherwise completely normal mouse that for whatever reason has the ability to cause people to make a Wisdom save or be Frightened, it doesn't mean that Bob isn't brave if he fails his roll. It means that in this instance, Bob can't approach that mouse and will have disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while he can see the mouse. Bob can't choose to be brave and approach anyway, because the rules of the game say he can't. If he breaks those rules, then he's cheating.

If Bob happens to be musophobic and sees a normal mouse, he's afraid. However, because he's afraid and not Frightened, he can choose to be brave and approach the mouse, and this doesn't break the rules. He will suffer no penalties while fighting even if the mouse is right there in front of him, watching his every move with its beady little eyes, no matter how terrified he is, because he's afraid, not Frightened.

(This is an example. Please do not try to bring up anything as to why this mouse can or cannot inflict the Frightened condition.)

head desk

Yes, I understand that fear and the frightened condition are not necessarily the same thing. Someone can be scared (ie experience fear) without being under the effects of the frightened condition. I understand that, in fact, it underlines my entire point.

Because being brave is about fear. As you literally said, to quote you right here "A character who is afraid of something can move towards the source of their fear. This is being brave." (emphasis mine_

The frightened condition supersedes this. Following the mechanical rules of the frightened condition has no bearing on whether or not you are brave.

The halfling ability is about the frightened condition. It isn't about fear. Therefore, since it isn't about fear, it can't be about being brave. Because it is only about the frightened condition, and to again quote you "This isn't being brave or being not brave or being cowardly; it's being under the effects of a game condition that has its own rules that supersede player agency."

So, since this is all true, halflings are not braver than other races. They can't be, because the frightened condition which is a game effect with specific rules that override player agency, is the ONLY thing that the halfing ability interacts with. And since the frightened condition has no bearing on whether or not someone is brave, this mechanical ability of the halflings also has no bearing on whether or not someone is brave.

You are literally laying out, in precise detail, my entire point. Describing halflings as "the brave race" because of this ability to interact with the frightened condition misstates what bravery is, because bravery has nothing to do with the frightened condition. Failing a save and falling under the mechanical effects of the frightened condition, has zero bearing on whether or not the character is brave. This is why I've proposed changing the name of the ability, and pushing for people not to describe halflings as exceptionally brave, because it doesn't work and comes from conflation.

And also, please understand that there is a difference between a game, which has specific rules as to how things must work, and any other form of media, which does not. It doesn't matter how halflings are shown to be lucky in a comic. The game has rules in order to keep things fair and working in a specific way, while media mostly has to concern itself with telling a good story.

The comic you posted from would not be good if all the main characters got horribly eaten a dragon in the first book, because the point of that comic was to follow these heroes around while they go around doing hero stuff and making quips. And that combat also had a page count limit, which means that didn't have space show a combat that is as involved and that takes as long as real D&D combat can, unless that combat was the main point of the issue--which it was not. The point of that issue was to get the characters together. Combat was secondary. The writer brought in a dragon to show how dangerous the world can be and to establish some character traits, and then killed it off so they could move on the next plot point.

And once again. I understand that comic books and games are different media. I understand that games have rules and comic book rules are different. I understand that you can have plot contrivances in a comic book, that you can't have in a game.

Supernatural luck is a plot contrivance. It always is a plot contrivance. It is nothing but a plot contrivance. It is literally the ability for things to work out for the sake of the plot.

So, since you can't have plot contrivances as mechanics in a game (at least not in a game designed in the way Dungeons and Dragons is designed) then supernatural luck is out of place. Halflings are repeatedly stated, by players, by DMs, and by the sourcebooks themselves to be supernaturally lucky. In the video I posted before Mearls talks about how a kingdom couldn't invade a halfling village, because the cartographer 20 years ago made a mistake and didn't mark where the village was on a map. This is, from the creative lead of the design of the game, how halfling luck works. It is a plot contrivance. It is literally the ability to alter the narrative to suit them, not actively, but passively.

And so, since this is a tabletop game where the game has rules in order to keep things fair and working in a specific way... halfling luck as we are told it must work by the narratives and lore of the game doesn't fit. It would be a bad rule. It would be a bad game design. I'm not talking about the lucky mechanic which affects the d20, that doesn't matter in this discussion, except that it is trying (and failing) to represent this supernatural luck of plot contrivances. I'm talking about what we have been told is true by the people who make the game.

And so, I have put forth, that since it is bad game design to have a race that has "plot contrivance" as a racial power, that we should move away from it. Because it is doing us no favors, and instead, putting a burden on the DM to include plot contrivances when dealing with halflings, otherwise they are violating the "halfling fantasy".

But, again, I do understand that when I sit down to play a game, I'm not reading a comic book. And when I'm writing a novel, I'm not playing a game. Because those things are different.

Likewise, a book or movie can show a character being as brave or as cowardly as the writer wants because that's what's needed for the script that they are writing, because the writer has full control over the characters they create. And a game book can set up basic expectations for the races. But the DM doesn't write the PC's actions and can't force the players to adhere to any particular tropes or to act in any particular way (except when the PCs are under the effects of a condition, but even then, the forced actions have to conform to the rules).

And because the DM can't force players to act certain ways, and the game has rules to keep things fair, I think the game setting up the basic expectation that "halflings are unusually brave and supernaturally lucky" is bad for the game. Those traits work great for a book or a movie, because the writer has perfect and full control over the characters they create, but that isn't true for a game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's not magical so much as it's meta. The X per day is player knowledge, not PC knowlege. The halfling doesn't make a conscious effort to use it, nor is it aware of how many uses are left. All the halfling knows is that he gets scared less often. It could be both I suppose, if the lore were something like, "The halfling gods blessed halflings to be less capable of being scared." or something, but it doesn't have to be.

Could work, it is more of a feel thing on giving it charges.

Yeah, but I think that's just one way to play them and with the right lore, folks wouldn't be so prone to that. Being fearless just means that you don't fear things, not that you don't understand dangers and treat danger with respect. Lore about halflings understand and respecting dangers, even if they aren't afraid will encourage people to play that way.

And "with the right lore" Kender aren't a menace. You can never trust that "the right lore" will prevent people from taking advantage of something and abusing it to the detriment of the party. Sometimes it is because they are just jerk players, but there is no reason to give them an opening when it is much easier to create similar effects without the potential abuse.

That's actually a really good idea. I like it. Not quite immune, but still affected and acting in a brave manner. I'm okay with casters having a hard time against one race when it comes to fear effects. Nothing should be perfect and D&D is very much an exceptions based system.

thumbs up

The depictions in the comics are not written for a D&D setting or even for D&D. They are written for comic book consumers. Only D&D game books are written for D&D.

A DnD comic, set in a DnD setting, with character sheets for the DnD characters depicted. Yeah, look, I understand that comics and games are different things. I don't roll a d20 when I open up a comic. And no one is drawing panel art when we sit down to play DnD.

But, you know, at some point the lore is supposed to be the lore. And the depictions of what happens are supposed to match what happens. And this comic did a really good job of that, repeatedly. They even cover deep lore for Kruthiks in 4e (the era the comic was written in) but I'm supposed to accept that they had no idea what halfling luck was supposed to look like and completely messed it up, so bad to the point that it isn't even recognizable as the same thing? While calling it out as halfling luck, a thing halflings are supposedly uniquely known for since 2nd edition? Come on. Halflings are depicted as supernaturally lucky, they are depicted as having plot contrivances all the time in the narrative, in the lore, even in the game books. This shouldn't be such a divisive claim.

It's a comic book/movie/TV show trope, though, not a D&D trope. D&D isn't played that way and isn't, nor should it be, played that way. It's fine for the comic book halfling to accidentally kill a very, VERY hurt dragon like that. It's not okay for it to happen in D&D unless the group has agreed to play that way and enjoys it. Typical play is for an attack to hurt the dragon, even if that attack is directed at a stalactite to try and drop it on the dragon to kill it. There will be deliberation in the act and the possibility of failure.

Nobody is obligated to describe halfling luck in that manner, nor is a player entitled to expect that it will happen that way in game play.

Except that it is a DnD trope. It came from DnD. Okay, "supernatural luck" didn't, but halflings HAVING supernatural luck is a DnD trope. So players DO have that expectation.

Sure, but few enough people are at those extremes that it doesn't really matter. You don't design or play a game like D&D around extremes.

You are right, you don't design the game for that. But it good to remember those extremes when someone starts berating you on the internet that "bad luck" doesn't exist and implying that you and your friend are superstitious and silly. You know, that whole thing that you jumped on to start talking with me about.

Of course they are uniquely tall. No other race is 7 feet on average. Other races being tall at 6 feet doesn't prevent 7 feet from being unique to that race.

So, in a group of tall people, how does the tall person feel like they are special for being tall?

I don't see how you can even say something like that.

Human fighter cannot advance towards the enemy and is attacking at disadvantage due to be scared out of his mind.

Halfling fighter waltzes right up to the enemy and attacks without disadvantage due to his increased bravery over the human.

That seems to me to be both worth mentioning and a notable difference.

Why is it you always assume that the halfling passes do to their advantage? Advantage isn't immunity. If it is a DC 19 and they have a +1 wisdom, it is likely that NEITHER fighter advances.

Why is it that walking forward is the only sign of bravery you can ever acknowledge? If my human fighter is a longbow using Arcane Archer, then they are never going to advance forward to the enemy no matter what their frightened status is.

Why is it that you can only acknowledge bravery in terms of the frightened condition, when it has nothing to do with bravery?

It probably seems worth mentioning to you, because you have these fundamental assumptions that, to me, make no sense.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There is lore about where goliaths come from and what they believe. The complaint was that they don't have a creation myth, pantheon and cosmology

Um... isn't "where they come from" a creation myth? Or do you literally mean "they live in the mountains" because that doesn't count for what we were talking about.

And yeah, it is really bizarre that the Goliaths seem to have no contact with religion. Especially considering they are part of the Forgotten Realms. That seems more like it was an oversight than a choice.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Of course they are uniquely tall. No other race is 7 feet on average.

Fir Bolg. Minotaur.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Um... isn't "where they come from" a creation myth? Or do you literally mean "they live in the mountains" because that doesn't count for what we were talking about.

And yeah, it is really bizarre that the Goliaths seem to have no contact with religion. Especially considering they are part of the Forgotten Realms. That seems more like it was an oversight than a choice.

They are giants. The ordning is their creation myth.

Although culturally atheistic is more interesting in a world where there is a god on every street corner.

I think the most detailed recent source on goliaths in the Forgotten Realms is Rime of the Frostmaiden. Out of the two goliath settlements detailed, only one has any places of worship mentioned: a pair of rune carved stones called The Shine of Mind and Spirit and the Shrine of Strength and Honour. Neither is associated with a specific deity, and suggests a spiritual life focused on personal perfection rather than an external force.

 

[James Gasik]

Um... isn't "where they come from" a creation myth? Or do you literally mean "they live in the mountains" because that doesn't count for what we were talking about.

And yeah, it is really bizarre that the Goliaths seem to have no contact with religion. Especially considering they are part of the Forgotten Realms. That seems more like it was an oversight than a choice.

When presented in Races of Stone, they had their own pantheon of Gods. The problem was, they were made setting-agnostic, and since Forgotten Realms is the only place they can live at the moment (being the only "kitchen sink" setting even remotely developed), they have to put up with a setting already bloated with Gods, which has no room for their own. They probably worship Iallanis of the Giant Pantheon, since most of the other Giant Gods are jerks and only like their own particular Giant kind.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

since Forgotten Realms is the only place they can live at the moment

They have a presence in Exandria, and a section in the Wildemount setting book. Were they would worship the Exandrian pantheon, like everyone else.

 

[Maxperson]

thumbs up

A DnD comic, set in a DnD setting, with character sheets for the DnD characters depicted. Yeah, look, I understand that comics and games are different things. I don't roll a d20 when I open up a comic. And no one is drawing panel art when we sit down to play DnD.

But, you know, at some point the lore is supposed to be the lore. And the depictions of what happens are supposed to match what happens. And this comic did a really good job of that, repeatedly. They even cover deep lore for Kruthiks in 4e (the era the comic was written in) but I'm supposed to accept that they had no idea what halfling luck was supposed to look like and completely messed it up, so bad to the point that it isn't even recognizable as the same thing? While calling it out as halfling luck, a thing halflings are supposedly uniquely known for since 2nd edition? Come on. Halflings are depicted as supernaturally lucky, they are depicted as having plot contrivances all the time in the narrative, in the lore, even in the game books. This shouldn't be such a divisive claim.



Except that it is a DnD trope. It came from DnD. Okay, "supernatural luck" didn't, but halflings HAVING supernatural luck is a DnD trope. So players DO have that expectation.

I doubt that more than a very small percentage(single digits) of D&D players even read that comic. Any expectations players would have comes from the halfling ability. And while at some point the lore is supposed to be the lore, it's only supposed to vaguely be the lore. Those mediums suffer from the power of plot which supersedes D&D limitations. Using that medium to set your expectation for what happens in a D&D game is an exercise in frustration. It's just not going to match up unless you go to the DM first and get him on board with making it happen.

So, in a group of tall people, how does the tall person feel like they are special for being tall?

14.5% of men are 6 feet tall. 0.000038% are 7 feet tall. That's how the 7 foot tall person feels special in a group of 6 foot tall people.

Why is it you always assume that the halfling passes do to their advantage? Advantage isn't immunity. If it is a DC 19 and they have a +1 wisdom, it is likely that NEITHER fighter advances.

I don't. I assume he makes it a lot more often than those without advantage.

Why is it that walking forward is the only sign of bravery you can ever acknowledge? If my human fighter is a longbow using Arcane Archer, then they are never going to advance forward to the enemy no matter what their frightened status is.

He's also not going to have the steady aim of a brave person overcoming and ignoring his fear.

Why is it that you can only acknowledge bravery in terms of the frightened condition, when it has nothing to do with bravery?

1. It does. 2. I have acknowledged other types of bravery. Several times. It's just that the halfling has his ability AND all those other kinds, making him braver.

 

[Maxperson]

Fir Bolg. Minotaur.

We're talking a hypothetical tallest race at 7 feet tall, not actual D&D races.