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?

 

[Bohandas]

...

They used the space to describe the races... to describe humans. Therefore, by your logic, humans are not human

Biology works sufficiently different in D&D that I think you could make a strong argument that that's the case. And even more so once that you consider that a significant percentage of this population isn't even fully "human" regardless, often containing traces of one or more of the clades of magical creatures posessing the ability to hybridize with anything, especially dragons, fiends, and celestials*.

There's also the matter of obviously superhuman exploits such as wading through lava and surviving, or continuing to fight at full force right until the moment they are knocked unconscious despite having already suffered injuries that should have killed a normal person several times over


*although almost anything with an associated half-(whatever) template will have a half-human example for that template (at least in 3e/3.5e), raising the argument that humans' actual niche in D&D is not "mundanity" or "relatability" but rather "the ones who shag everything"

 

[Chaosmancer]

I can understand it, when trying to square the above with the below:

Why don't these two quotes square with each other?

Simple. Because even if the flawed design is WotC's doing, they're not going to fix it until we all fix it ourselves individually first, and in the process quite literally show them both a) what needs doing and b) how it's done. Therefore, advocating for them to proactively fix it - which you seem to be doing in the second quoted piece just above - is just an exercise in shouting at the wind.

As for "voiding the warranty", as a charter member of the Kitbashers Union(TM) it should go without saying that I have no problem with this whatsoever.

They square with each other because of the Oberoni Fallacy.

Yes, WoTC is unlikely to fix it until we go around and start looking at changing it and discussing why it needs to be changed. Silence means everything is working well after all. But, when asked "whose responsibility is it to change this material" it cannot be left at "You must fix the game that you purchased." There is a distinctive difference between the actions that should be taken, and the end result.

The end result should be changes from WoTC, not changes at individual tables. That is why saying "just fix it yourself" isn't the end goal, in my mind, of the discussion. Sure, I can fix it, but that doesn't mean the problem is solved, that just means I'm no longer dealing with the original material that was a problem. One of these is a means to an end, the other is the end.

As for you being part of the Kitbashers Union, sure, I don't think there is a problem with it. In fact, I homebrew quite a bit myself. But I don't expect WoTC to be responsible for my homebrew, and I imagine you don't expect WoTC to be responsible for your homebrew. WoTC is responsible for official products however, not me and not you.

I sometimes think about it in terms of cars. If Ford puts out a car with a bad part, it isn't the responsibility of the consumers to replace that part. But if a consumer buys and installs a bad part into their Ford, it isn't Ford's responsibility that you messed up your car. And if Ford is putting out a bad design, yes, someone needs to make a better design and show them that and advocate for the new design, but it doesn't end with them making the new design, it ends with Ford adopting the new design.

 

[Chaosmancer]

As to making races interesting, I really try. I mean, in previous campaign world I made, I had "Common" Halflings, who lived in a dreary, cold part of the region and had thrived there where the other races basically had failed to do so, but they had run afoul of Will o' Wisps, who, being magical, intelligent, and really hard to fight, had forced the Halflings to basically become their servants (possessing useful things like hands). In retrospect, maybe using the word "Common" was the problem (I wanted to differentiate them from a Halfling subrace I'd made). Or maybe it was that said subrace was cooler, since I definitely got someone wanting to play one.

(Game mechanics are for Pathfinder 1e)

View attachment 266511
View attachment 266512

Yeah, the name "common halfling" really doesn't sell this well.

This is a super cool idea though, and I was thinking about halflings dealing with the ethereal. I actually wonder about making a connection between halflings and spirits of the dead like Will-o-Wisps. The Ghostwise open the door to this, but there is a lot of fertile ground here.

Maybe "Moor Walker" Halflings? I honestly really like this idea and it could be really cool to play with.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Biology works sufficiently different in D&D that I think you could make a strong argument that that's the case. And even more so once that you consider that a significant percentage of this population isn't even fully "human" regardless, often containing traces of one or more of the clades of magical creatures posessing the ability to hybridize with anything, especially dragons, fiends, and celestials*.

There's also the matter of obviously superhuman exploits such as wading through lava and surviving, or continuing to fight at full force right until the moment they are knocked unconscious despite having already suffered injuries that should have killed a normal person several times over


*although almost anything with an associated half-(whatever) template will have a half-human example for that template (at least in 3e/3.5e), raising the argument that humans' actual niche in D&D is not "mundanity" or "relatability" but rather "the ones who shag everything"

Oh, I fully agree that the humans TRUE super power seems to be that they will sleep with anything. Heck, it is amusing to me to consider that this might be literally true, since Humanity is easily able to find just about anything sexually attractive.

But, beyond the biology, you really have to consider how much of this is just a factor of the non-simulationist rules and the exploits of great heroes. Beowulf supposedly held his breath for 8 or more hours after all. And remember, while Lava swimming is something some people can survive, at 10d10 damage (average of 55) most people won't be able to survive it. The majority of NPCs will have less than 55 health.

So, are ALL humans capable of this feat? Not even close. The vast majority will die. Additionally, the lava damage is too low for how dangerous lava really is, but this is true for all hazards in the game. And it is also true of all creatures in the game. Elephant's have 76 hp, and could therefore all survive at least 6 seconds of lava, which is unrealistic, but is just the nature of the game, not the nature of the elephants of DnD.

 

[Lanefan]

They square with each other because of the Oberoni Fallacy.

Yes, WoTC is unlikely to fix it until we go around and start looking at changing it and discussing why it needs to be changed. Silence means everything is working well after all. But, when asked "whose responsibility is it to change this material" it cannot be left at "You must fix the game that you purchased." There is a distinctive difference between the actions that should be taken, and the end result.

The end result should be changes from WoTC, not changes at individual tables. That is why saying "just fix it yourself" isn't the end goal, in my mind, of the discussion. Sure, I can fix it, but that doesn't mean the problem is solved, that just means I'm no longer dealing with the original material that was a problem. One of these is a means to an end, the other is the end.

"Just fix it yourself" isn't the end goal, but it's step-one towards the end goal of getting them fixed overall; a goal that will not be reached without that first step. So, what I'm saying is take that first step in hopes that the end goal will eventually come.

I sometimes think about it in terms of cars. If Ford puts out a car with a bad part, it isn't the responsibility of the consumers to replace that part. But if a consumer buys and installs a bad part into their Ford, it isn't Ford's responsibility that you messed up your car. And if Ford is putting out a bad design, yes, someone needs to make a better design and show them that and advocate for the new design, but it doesn't end with them making the new design, it ends with Ford adopting the new design.

Ah, there's the difference. I don't look at an RPG book (or set of books) as being the finished car. I look at them as being a collection of partly-to-mostly-assembled parts that I can and must finish putting together myself before hitting the road, modifying as I go along to make the car what I want it to be.

And every now and then Ford (or in this case WotC) look at the overall patterns of modifications being made and eventually change the root product to suit.

 

[Irlo]

Nothing that WotC can do to halflings will be considered a "fix" by everyone involved, especially people like me that don't think they need fixing. It's still worth discussing ideas for changes, but I can't cut through the clutter on this thread to find what specific changes are on the table for consideration.

Subraces leave ample ground for developing halfings to suit every taste without drastically changing the baseline.

 

[Oofta]

Nothing that WotC can do to halflings will be considered a "fix" by everyone involved, especially people like me that don't think they need fixing. It's still worth discussing ideas for changes, but I can't cut through the clutter on this thread to find what specific changes are on the table for consideration.

Subraces leave ample ground for developing halfings to suit every taste without drastically changing the baseline.

There have been precious few actual suggestions, especially lately. Like you I think halflings are fine as they are. A short race will never be particularly popular, for a lot of people bigger will always be better. So judging popularity doesn't really mean all that much.

If I were to add anything, I like the idea of halflings getting some sort of a bonus to slings and/or throwing stones. But like every other race (except tiefling) they don't need anything inherently supernatural beyond what they already have with lucky.

 

[bedir than]

There have been precious few actual suggestions, especially lately. Like you I think halflings are fine as they are. A short race will never be particularly popular, for a lot of people bigger will always be better. So judging popularity doesn't really mean all that much.

If I were to add anything, I like the idea of halflings getting some sort of a bonus to slings and/or throwing stones. But like every other race (except tiefling) they don't need anything inherently supernatural beyond what they already have with lucky.

Someone mentioned something like Respite, a minor version of Song of Rest. I'd like that.

Hurling: Most halflings spend time throwing things throughout their lives. Their short range on thrown weapons is doubled.

 

[Chaosmancer]

"Just fix it yourself" isn't the end goal, but it's step-one towards the end goal of getting them fixed overall; a goal that will not be reached without that first step. So, what I'm saying is take that first step in hopes that the end goal will eventually come.

Sure, you need to take the first step. But you can't stop after the first step, or you won't take the second. And many people have been saying that the first step is the last step.

Ah, there's the difference. I don't look at an RPG book (or set of books) as being the finished car. I look at them as being a collection of partly-to-mostly-assembled parts that I can and must finish putting together myself before hitting the road, modifying as I go along to make the car what I want it to be.

And every now and then Ford (or in this case WotC) look at the overall patterns of modifications being made and eventually change the root product to suit.

The thing is though, DnD has to be a complete product. It doesn't have to be a "perfect for everyone" product, but it has to be complete. People like you and me, we can take DnD as a toolset to build anything out of. We can do that because we have the drive, the creative spark, and the experience to do so.

But, despite my constantly trying to encourage others, many many people either can't or feel they they can't and therefore don't, make their own products. And if they are only going to have the baseline product, then it needs to be a complete product that works without needing any changes.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, you need to take the first step. But you can't stop after the first step, or you won't take the second. And many people have been saying that the first step is the last step.

Well, it is, at the individual-table level. It's the only thing we can do, other than maybe discuss our various fixes (if any) in places like this.

The thing is though, DnD has to be a complete product. It doesn't have to be a "perfect for everyone" product, but it has to be complete. People like you and me, we can take DnD as a toolset to build anything out of. We can do that because we have the drive, the creative spark, and the experience to do so.

But, despite my constantly trying to encourage others, many many people either can't or feel they they can't and therefore don't, make their own products. And if they are only going to have the baseline product, then it needs to be a complete product that works without needing any changes.

Ideally, this would be true. In practice, while the complete product works well enough to play straight out of the tin (and in one way or another always has) it never seems to work quite as well as it could were it given some tweaking; never mind that what works for one table might not work for another and so the tweaks done will be different.

It's only when a huge number of tables make more or less the same tweak (e.g. the dropping of xp-for-gp in 1e) that the designers eventually make the main game follow suit.

One change I'm half-surprised didn't come with 5e, given the number of tables that seem to have done it independently, is to go to a s.p.-based game/setting economy rather than g.p.-based. Personally I'm fine with g.p.-based and have kept it, but going to s.p.-based is a common houserule. Wonder if they'll go this route with 5.5e?