D&D 5E Halflings are the 7th most popular 5e race

[CleverNickName]

Mystara had 1000s(?) of empires. Having a single halfling one doesn't show that halflings are important. Having player characters be halfings is what is important.

I wasn't trying to argue the importance of halflings. I was responding to @bedir than 's comment...they wrote that there were zero settings that "featured halflings as a dominant empire," which isn't true. I named one off the top of my head but there might be others--I haven't played every campaign setting.

I don't think this has any bearing on what is or isn't "important" in the game. I think it's just a fun bit of trivia.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Since zero setting featured halflings as a dominant empire there's pretty hard evidence that settings aren't built with the core four races being required to have empires -- see Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and every other setting until Dark Sun (and every one since Dark Sun).

no they always offer them as a major race they do not build empires that is the problem nor seek great things.

That strikes me as putting the cart before the horse. I don't think races were included in the core rulebooks of any edition of D&D based on whether or not they were the focus of empires/kingdoms in any of the extant settings. Most of them were included to give players a chance to play iconic character types in some of the inspirational literature.

I mean that halflings should not be in a common race slot as it is impossible to work them into a setting in the way the fourth option should be they like gnomes should be less common to suit their underdog appeal thus something should be move into there spot so something can add more options to setting design.

I see a reason to include halflings but even in Tolkien they are a small race confined to a small area which is what they are built for trying to make them major or common breaks the reason they were invented.

 

[James Gasik]

Ok, new idea. Instead of worrying about what species should/could be in a PHB, just replace it all with a "species creation" ruleset with a few examples of "classic" races and let every group create their own species that they think would be cool.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Ok, new idea. Instead of worrying about what species should/could be in a PHB, just replace it all with a "species creation" ruleset with a few examples of "classic" races and let every group create their own species that they think would be cool.

that does not fix the problem of what should be an example nor how to integrate options into settings, now having creations rules at the back would be nice but does not make player-dm setting interaction better.

 

[CreamCloud0]

halflings i tend to imagine as just more spread out than the other species, just because you have all the human, elf and dwarf populations who gather together into their own notable empires all built up that doesn't mean there's not an equal population of halflings just distributed less centralised amongst those other settlements and in their own smaller settlements (or travelling caravans as they were in 4e if i've picked that up correctly?)

 

[James Gasik]

that does not fix the problem of what should be an example nor how to integrate options into settings, now having creations rules at the back would be nice but does not make player-dm setting interaction better.

Integrating a species into a setting is a setting book's job, isn't it? Or at the very least, if you're building your own, it should be in the DMG. One of the problems I see with threads like these is that there are people who are unhappy with the way species have ben used to date is that they are stereotypes; dwarves live inthe ground and are ruled by guilds, elves live in the woods in harmony with nature, halflings have an agrarian culture where neighbor helps neighbor, orcs raid and plunder, humans do all the things.

If you say "these are the five things you can play and these are how you should use them in your game", then that doesn't leave much room for other species who occupy the same niche.

 

[bedir than]

I see a reason to include halflings but even in Tolkien they are a small race confined to a small area which is what they are built for trying to make them major or common breaks the reason they were invented.

This is only true in the third age.
Tolkien's second age had halflings all over the place.

 

[Lanefan]

I find the mischaracterization of you frustrating as I am the guy who hates halflings.

I do think fundamentally halflings should be moved out of the fourth most common race slot as that was not even their function in Tolkien stories they are designed to be minor bit parts from the setting scale the ents have had more large-scale implications.

So are you suggesting Hobbits should be replaced with Ents as a PC-playable species?

That would jump more than a few sharks....

 

[Mind of tempest]

halflings i tend to imagine as just more spread out than the other species, just because you have all the human, elf and dwarf populations who gather together into their own big cities all built up that doesn't mean there's not an equal number of halflings just distributed less centrally amongst those other settlements and in their own smaller settlements (or travelling caravans as they were in 4e if i've picked that up correctly?)

okay but what does that add to the setting past lots of halflings?
have you given them more to them, got them doing something big plot hooks beyond the so fundamentally mundane that every culture will have them?

if not my point stands

Integrating a species into a setting is a setting book's job, isn't it? Or at the very least, if you're building your own, it should be in the DMG. One of the problems I see with threads like these is that there are people who are unhappy with the way species have ben used to date is that they are stereotypes; dwarves live inthe ground and are ruled by guilds, elves live in the woods in harmony with nature, halflings have an agrarian culture where neighbor helps neighbor, orcs raid and plunder, humans do all the things.

If you say "these are the five things you can play and these are how you should use them in your game", then that doesn't leave much room for other species who occupy the same niche.

the settings reflect the core books thus the core books should reflect a fairly basically functioning way of setting building as players and dm clashing is a bad idea.
some stereotypes are more useable for the fourth major slot than others.

This is only true in the third age.
Tolkien's second age had halflings all over the place.

given the second age is more note and half-finished I would not call it a guide on what a ttprpg setting should look like it is the wrong medium for starters.

So are you suggesting Hobbits should be replaced with Ents as a PC-playable species?

That would jump more than a few sharks....

no as I have no idea what should.

secondly how would it jump the shark it is not even the strangest option.

 

[Lanefan]

secondly how would it jump the shark it is not even the strangest option.

Your starting 1st-level party: a Human, an Elf, a Dwarf, a Tiefling, and an Ent.

Which of those could wipe the floor with the other four characters with no effort whatsoever? (hint: the answer starts with 'E' but is not Elf)

Unless of course Ents were horribly gimped so as to be in balance with other PC-playables, thus ruining the species.