• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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.

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

Faolyn

(she/her)
Wow, if I have ever seen a more perfect example of why debating people on the internet is a massive pain in the butt.
Yes, yes it is.

But, you know what, I'm in the trenches, so why not waste more of my time.

Is 45% nonsense? Every number on a d20 is a 5% chance. You succeed on a death saving throw when you roll a 10 or higher. Therefore to fail a death saving throw, you need to roll a 9 or lower. 9 x 5 = 45%

Basic algebra? NONSENSE!
Yes, this all nonsense because it has nothing to do your premise: that the narration you provide for the halflings in your game doesn't include magical luck, so therefore, halflings are a terrible PC race.

Whether or not halflings are 3% more lucky or 45% more lucky or even 100% more lucky is completely irrelevant because you refuse to understand that the trait is a passive trait that lets them reroll 1s and not a narrative trait that allows the player to rewrite reality so they can be super-lucky all the time. And because death saving throws are just one type of roll that they can use their Lucky with.

I mean, obviously an officially licensed DnD comic with officially licensed and written characters (The halfling is Bree Three-Hands is a Level 7 Rogue Thief) couldn't possibly have anything to do with DnD, right?

I mean, the author is John Rogers, who helped right the 4e Manual of Planes, he probably has never even heard of DnD?!
Well, I just checked, and that comic seems to have come out in 2010-2012, so he had never heard of 5th edition. Oh and, 4e halflings didn't have Lucky as a trait. As far as I can tell, they only had a power called "second chance" which allowed them to reroll an attack roll once per encounter.

So your example had nothing to do with 5e halflings who have the Lucky trait.

Also, I just read the comic you posted that screenshot from (issue 0). That was pure writer's fiat there, not a thing to do with any sort of mechanics. As evidence by a black dragon's breath weapon getting blocked by a single shield and then the dragon getting killed by a single blow to the head. I don't think is how breath weapons worked in 4e, and one rock shouldn't be enough damage to take down a dragon, as I already said.

1657861259009.png


If halflings aren't supernaturally lucky, then why are they supposedly defined by their good luck? Why is it that DnD comics, shows and books have often depicted them as "reality warpers" as you want to put it?
I already answered this question before: because comics, shows, and books don't actually use D&D mechanics, because D&D mechanics don't tell a good story. You want the Heroes to slay the BBEG at the end, not get killed because they rolled badly or because they forgot that it was immune to one damage type or weak against another. Or worse, because you want the Heroes to have an epic battle and instead they do something completely off the rails that turns the final battle into a farce. You want a sneaky thief to kill someone with a single blow from behind, not just do some extra damage and then have to engage in combat for a few more rounds. You want an archer to shoot an arrow into the monster's eyes because it looks cool, while in the game they can't do that because D&D doesn't have a called shot system. You want to have scenes where the cleric truly speaks with their god and perform miracles beyond mere spells and not have to wait until they reach a high enough level to cast commune or use the Divine Intervention trait. You want to have a scene where a young, fresh-faced druid wildshapes into a bird even though druids of that level can't. You want to have casters use spells in creative ways that the rules don't normally allow.

A D&D-based comic, novel, or show is based on the game's worlds, not on their mechanics.

And I also answered this a second way as well. Halflings believe in luck. They credit good things to good luck and bad things to bad luck. So if something good happens to or near a halfling, it must be because of halfling luck.

Also... yeah, if it isn't my job as the DM to narrate the Elf PC being aloof, or the Dwarf PC being stubborn, or decide when the Dragonborn PC has flames licking from their jaws, why is it my job to make sure to bend the world to narrate halflings being lucky? I've already got Maxperson saying that I must be a Bad Faith DM because I don't go out of my way to describe lucky events happening to the halfling over and above what happens to the rest of the party. But I don't have to narrate the racial traits of the other party members. They get to do that. They get to decide when their elfness or dwarfness or goliathness comes into play. But if I as the DM don't enforce halfling luck... it barely exists.
You honestly can't tell the difference between narrating an elf PC being aloof and a halfling PC being lucky? OK then. Here goes: if you narrate an elf PC being aloof, you are taking over the character from the player and telling the player what their character is doing. That's not cool.

If you narrate a halfling as being lucky, then you are modifying the world around them The world that you, the DM, already are in complete control of.

Or... maybe because it isn't defining? Maybe "everyone can do this if they try" makes it not something that feels unique about the halfling?
A bird can fly. In order to fly, a human has to go through the effort to get into an airplane or similar machine. That doesn't diminish a bird's natural ability to fly.

Okay, fine. Give me a scenario where a halfling is brave where a human level 10 paladin can't be brave?
Nope. Because human paladins also have an ability to resist the frightened condition. That doesn't make halflings less special, because all halflings can resist being frightened and only the very, very few humans who become 10th-level paladins get the same ability.

In fact, I'll be more fair. Give me a scenario where a halfling is brave, where a human can't be, without mentioning dice rolls.
Sure: an NPC halfling and an NPC human walk into a haunted house. The ghosts in the house say "Get out! GET OUT!" The DM decides that the human runs away screaming and the halfling doesn't.

Now why is it that you refuse to understand that Brave is a passive, mechanical trait and not a narrative trait? Am I not getting through to you, or are you just trolling?

Because, again, I've only been talking about the narrative impact. I've been doing that from the very beginning.
And again, you've been talking about the wrong thing. Because it is not a narrative trait. It makes as much sense as complaining that dwarfs aren't good at determining the origin of woodwork.

If your just angry because you think I'm saying these mechanical traits are weak or something, then just stop, because I'm not discussing that. Because, shockingly, the narrative does matter. This isn't a board game, it is a role-playing game. So the narrative impact matters. And unless you are saying that you cannot be brave unless you pass a saving throw against magically induced fear, then halflings are not uniquely brave. Because "is more likely to resist magical fear" isn't how we define bravery.
The narrative matters.

Traits are not the narrative.

Traits don't control the narrative.

Traits don't determine the narrative.

All traits do is help to maybe nudge the narrative in certain directions. Instead of saying rolling a 1 when using Perform and then saying "I failed miserably when I tried to sing a song to woo the bartender," the halfling can roll a 1, reroll, get another number, and then base their narrative off of that number instead. Because they're Lucky in a way that lets them reroll 1s.

The narrative, however, is entirely up to the player and DM. The Lucky trait only ensured that the first roll isn't a natural 1.

Right, it isn't like Mordenkainen's goes on to say anything like "When a halfling trips, slides down a hillside, and lands on a nugget of gold, that's Yondalla turning bad luck into good." (pg 103) [...] Or that Yondallam who is credited as the source of the halflings luck, was usually given the Protection domain (in both 3rd and 2nd edition) which would strongly imply that halfling luck is literally divine intervention to protect her children. [...] Or that one of the writers for DnD (Mike Mearls) referred to it as "cosmic luck" and said that it was gifted to them from the Goddess
Sure. And that's something that's up to the DM to include. Or something that never actually happens in real life but people believe it does. Or it only happens to NPCs. It's not something that needs to be on the character sheet.

I've even given you suggestions on how to include the luck by doing minor things that favor the halfling but don't affect them mechanically or financially, and you've poo-poohed them.

Why does no one seem to understand that feeling fear and being shaken by fear doesn't make you a coward? How is this a hard concept? I've literally taught it to 7 year olds in picture books about monsters under the bed. But somehow, this idea that halflings are brave because they can succeed on a save just refuses to bend to the actual definition of bravery.
the only person who's said that is you, so I don't know what your problem is.

Both a human child and a halfling child may quake in fear from the monster under a bed, but if that monster exists and produces an effect that inflicts the frightened condition, then the halfling is less likely to succumb to it. Because their trait doesn't affect fear, it affects the frightened condition.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yup.

Notice. The AVERAGE can be a bit above 4 feet for these human ethnicities. The bellcurve includes adults who are less than 4 feet.

Some of the shorter humans are the same size as some of the taller halflings.

Moreover, there are prehistoric humans who are the same average size as halflings.

Small humans exist.

Note the insular dwarfism is a naturally occurring adaptation for many species. It is different from impaired growth. These smaller groups are healthy.
I haven't yet dug up distributions on height and weight, but I rather suspect that if an average halfling is the same average height and weight of grade school children, the adults at that same size would be in the tail-iest, tail-end of the distribution.. such that we are no longer talking about a "representative" sample of that group's population.

I agree that small humans can exist. Halfling-sized ones, not as an active population on Earth in the last 50,000 years (and the height for those skeletons you mentioned was still bigger than the average halfling in D&D).

It's just a bad look, especially if you are invoking non-extinct people groups who do not fit the classification you are trying to ascribe to them and aren't even really that close.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Because their trait doesn't affect fear, it affects the frightened condition.
Right. Which makes sense, because bravery isn’t lack of fear, it’s the ability to master your fear, and keep doing what you need to do. It’s easier for halflings to do that, because they are a little more brave than a human with the same personality and upbringing otherwise.
 

Yaarel

🇮🇱He-Mage
I haven't yet dug up distributions on height and weight, but I rather suspect that if an average halfling is the same average height and weight of grade school children, the adults at that same size would be in the tail-iest, tail-end of the distribution.. such that we are no longer talking about a "representative" sample of that group's population.

I agree that small humans can exist. Halfling-sized ones, not as an active population on Earth in the last 50,000 years (and the height for those skeletons you mentioned was still bigger than the average halfling in D&D).

It's just a bad look, especially if you are invoking non-extinct people groups who do not fit the classification you are trying to ascribe to them and aren't even really that close.
Heh, actually I did. The 5e Players handbook has halflings be shorter than I remembered, from 2' 9" to about 3' 3". Notably, the highest human height is about 6' 4", which seems short for an upper limit. Likewise, the lower limit of 4' 10" is too tall, and implies that reallife pygmy ethnicities who can be much shorter are not "humans". Humanity includes its rarer members. The rules need to reflect this, and now do, when a player can choose whatever bodytype one wants for ones character.

To be fair, I also have the Forgotten Realms setting in mind. These are not called out in the Players Handbook, but exist within its default setting. For example, the tallfellow halflings are 4 feet and taller, but still count as Small because of a lean and light stature.

As such, the 4 feet as a rough threshold between Small and Medium applies, and the taller halflings are the same height as human pygmy ethnicities.

In sum, let both human and halflings include both Medium and Small individuals, players choice, while understanding frequency. But this also means that halflings are defacto a human ethnicity.
 
Last edited:

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
See, the human fails 45% of time (anything lower than a 10) and the halfling fails 47.25% of the time (Anything lower than a 10, with a reroll). Sure, the halfling is very unlikely to roll a 1... but that isn't failure. Failure is failing the roll.
You might want to recheck that math. It's impossible for the halfling to fail more often if he has a reroll as some of those rerolls will be successes.
Really? So, when my Fighter reaches level 3 and gains proficiency in the Arcana skill, he has become 10% luckier than he was before? Because, succeeding on the action = Luck.
No. Let's say a normal race will succeed 50 times out of every 100 attempts at something. And halflings, due to their luck kicking in(the re-roll = luck) succeed 52.5 times out of every 100 attempts at something. They succeeded more often due to luck. Success =/= luck. Success due explicitly to luck = luck.
Actually, the adventurers and PCs being brave matters a lot. In fact, it could be the only thing that does matter. Because who does your character get compared to? The other PCs. I'm reminded of the Worf effect. I'm sure you've heard about it. Is Worf a bad-ass warrior? Sure, we are told he is, but if you watch the show you see him... lose. Constantly. He could fold the vast majority of humans on Earth into a pretzel, but that doesn't really matter because we never see him do it. He's the guy that always loses the fight, so it doesn't matter how much you tell us he is a great warrior.
Compared to other adventurers, the halfling is objectively braver, because brave adventurer + bravery mechanic > brave adventurer all by itself. There's nothing a human adventurer can roleplay as being brave that a halfling cannot, but the halfling will fail fewer fear saves and spend less time cowering and running from the enemy.
Sure, the common peasants are running in fear... but your companions aren't. Most fear effects don't include "cowering", in fact, I think only a single fear effect in the game changes your stated actions at all. So the halfling will in fact not be cowering less than his companions, because his companions will generally not be cowering.
Every single ability that gives the frightened condition, and there are a lot, will cause the adventurers who fail the save to cower in fear. You are literally quaking in your boots so badly you have disadvantage on all ability checks and attack rolls. So your "brave" adventurer can't get a grip on his fear. He cannot be brave enough to stand against it and move forward. That little halfling, though, will be able to a lot more often.


And, again, if we are going to measure bravery as "succeeds on saving throws vs fear" then the Monk, Druid and Cleric are even braver than most halflings. Being high wisdom classes. Some Ranger's too. Because, they are going to succeed on those fear saves, so they must be even braver. Except, again, we don't define bravery by whether or not you feel magical fear.
All classes that halfling can also be.
It is not your position that a DM who goes out of their way to narrate the halfling as being luckier than his companions is a bad DM.
The halfling IS luckier than his companions, assuming none of them took the Lucky feat anyway.
If I don't go out of my way to describe lucky things happening to halfling because of their luck...
If you don't go out of your way to narrate the results of the halflings actions as RAW says?
That is a level of care for the race that no other race gets.
Quite literally every race gets to have their actions narrated according to what they have done. Halflings get nothing special in that regard.
To roll this back. Let's take your example of climbing that wall (which shouldn't be a roll, but that is neither here nor there)

So the halfling declares an action to climb the wall and rolls a... 5! How does halfling luck apply to this situation? It doesn't. Maybe the halfling is searching a room and rolls a.... 15! How does halfling luck apply to this situation? It doesn't.
Amazing! You've picked numbers where the halflings luck doesn't kick in and then said, "See, the halfling isn't lucky!!!" How about you go back to the halfling rolling a 1 and then re-rolling into a success, which is by RAW an action with a narration that the DM is required to narrate as lucky?
In fact, I have seen a halfling character go an entire campaign without rolling a 1 on a d20 check. There is, after all, only a 5% chance of rolling a 1. So, in that situation... is the halfling lucky? No. Their "luck" never manifests...
Your campaigns must be pretty short. An entire campaign where the halfling never rolled a 1 on anything seems pretty unlikely unless it ended at level 2 or 3. With all pf those attacks, saves and ability checks the halfling PC makes, never rolling a 1 extremely unlikely for any campaign of any significant amount of time.
So, they don't get that narration of being lucky. Or they succeeded, and the DM attributes it to their luck, where for any other character it would be because of their skill.
No. This is wrong. For any other character it would be a failure because they rolled a 1 and didn't get a re-roll.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
So now we're going with..if you aren't the only race with a benefit, that benefit is not noticeable for your race. Is this the Highlander school of racial characteristics? And we're including humans as a measuring stick??

What do you mean "So now we are going with"? Have you actually forgotten the start of this conversation? Here, let me remind you The Trouble with Halflings

"So halflings have to figure out what makes them unique." To which you responded "Like bravery stealthiness, and luck?"

So... this entire time it has been about their unique characteristics. I mean, I know it was a whole three days ago, but why are you acting shocked that I haven't forgotten the premise?

You hold up humans and go "look, they can do it to, so your race thing must not be very distinctive". You do this without acknowledging that Humans can be the stealthy race, the perceptive race, the tough race, the educated race, etc. (Almost like their hallmark is adaptability and variety rather than any one specialization).

Let's take your argument to its natural conclusion,
  • Humans can get "observant", elves aren't perceptive anymore
  • Humans can get "skilled" or "prodigy" dwarves aren't crafters and half-elves are not skillful, half orcs aren't menacing.
  • Humans can get "magic initiate" elves and gnomes are no longer magical
  • Humans can get "eldritch adept" no race with darvision is associated with the dark anymore
  • Humans can get one of the armor fests or "weapon master" no race has any tradition of arms or armor
We could go on, or we could step back and realize that:
  1. One race being good at/known for a thing does not mean that other races can't be good at/known for that thing, and,
  2. Humans are poor references for racial distinctiveness, and probably shouldn't be used that way.
Circling over to elven craft goods. If you consider the fancy boots and cloaks they make , and that the one type of armor they make is medium armor (no stealthy penalty y'all).. where might you guess one of their focuses is as a race? Wait..and a +2 to dex..and a subrace with stealth mechanics..hmmm.. now that is interesting.

Right, it isn't like in the lore that inspired Mithril armor it stopped a troll's spear or anything. It was all about being stealthy, not impenetrable. Oh.. wait, that wasn't true.

Also, yes, I brought up that humans can wear armor. The horror! It is almost like everyone wears armor? And it isn't special to dwarves? Which was my point? I mean, only three classes in the entire game don't get some form of armor, and only three more don't get medium armor. So "wears armor" is pretty common for just about every single race in the game.

But sure, go on a diatribe about how since humans can be anything no one can be unique, I'm sure that's the correct response to "dwarves aren't known for wearing armor, because everyone wears armor"

Now let's circle back to dwarves and read the speed thing again..

"Your speed cannot be reduced by heavy armor" (PHB)

If my dwarf has an 8 strength, as your stereotypical "stocky strong" guy does, do they move slower in heavy plate? Referring above..that would be a negative.

Do other 8 strength characters take a speed penalty for wearing heavy armor?

"If the Armor table shows “Str 13” or “Str 15” in the Strength column for an armor type, the armor reduces the wearer’s speed by 10 feet unless the wearer has a Strength score equal to or higher than the listed score." (PHB)

8<13<15... so I guess they do take that penalty and move slower.

Is an 8 strength dwarf stronger than other 8 strength characters?

"Strength: the quality or state of being physically strong" (Dictionary)

..and.. 8 strength=8 strength..sooo..no, they are not.

Hmm..equal strength scores..strength equals being strong..one race can wear the armor better than the other..the one who wears the armor gets smith's tools proficiency and potentially an armor proficiency..smith's tools are used to make armor..and armor proficiency helps you wear armor..

Yep. Guess dwarves are just stronger than their strength score somehow..no other way to explain it.

It's like 1+1= potato.

Right, because we can definetly find somewhere that it says that Dwarves can wear armor because they are good at making armor. And therefore Dwarves are the armored race. No other race does armor like them... except for every race. Because I've never seen a single person put on heavy armor without the strength to back it up, so it has literally never once come up.

And since dwarves are unique in their ability to wear armor, then halflings are unique in their ability to be stealthy, because that was your original claim.

When comparing race mechanics, we compare race mechanics to each other and think about how they impact races' reputations relative to each other. Advantages provided by one race are compared to advantages provided by others. If your racial feature is better, it stands to reason that it's something your race is good at and perhaps known for. A particular character may or may not be a good exemplar of that reputation depending on whether you lean into or away from those features.

To turn it around..

During the last great halfling thread (or maybe the one before), you made the case that gnomes are great illusionists. How do the mechanics support this? Well one gnomes subrace..one..can cast the minor illusion cantrip. When I say halflings are stealthy..The amount of extrapolation I am engaging in is the same as what you have done for gnomes. It is directly symmetrical.

I have no issue with accepting that gnomes are known for being illusionists despite the paucity of mechanical support for such a contention. Why are you fighting back so hard on halflings being known for being stealthy?

And now we are bringing up something from... a year ago? I don't even know when this was anymore. So yeah, can't win the argument we are having now, so you are trying to bring up old things I said that no one is going to have time look into, and make me argue that instead of defending your own claim.

You said halflings were uniquely stealthy. We have since narrowed that down. Stout, Lotusden, Ghostwise, Mark of Hospitality, and Mark of Healing halflings are not particularly stealthy beyond their bonus to dexterity. Lightfoot halflings can be argued to be particularly stealthy.

We then hit a crossroads, down one road we say that halflings are uniquely stealthy because of their dexterity bonus. The same as the other 17 or so races that get dexterity bonuses would therefore be uniquely stealthy. The other road is that halflings are not uniquely stealthy, lightfoots may be, but halflings as a whole are not uniquely stealthy.


As for why I am pushing back on this? Because this subject comes up fairly often. And every time it is the same thing. Halflings are declared to have their place because they are small, they are stealthy, they are brave and they are lucky.

And then you look at something like the Goblin. The goblin is small. The goblin can bonus action hide, making it quite noticeably stealthy. The goblin adventurer would be brave. And the less said about luck the better. And suddenly you realize... well, what else is there to halflings? There is more to goblins after all, they have more lore and deeper roots in fantasy than almost any other fantasy race in existence. They are equal to elves and dwarves, if not greater in terms of their culture impact.

But people love halflings, they want to keep playing halflings... and yet they refuse to even consider the possibility that there may be a problem. They just repeat the mantra. Small, stealthy, lucky, brave. Like it is some sort of magical chant that fixes everything. I'm not against halflings, but they are fading as a concept, because people can't let go of them long enough to wonder if they might need something more.

You want me to talk about gnomes? Gnomes are doing fine in terms of the lore. People may not like them, but they are very recognizable, and they offer something interesting to any setting that chooses to use them. Decry that all you want, in the most recent gnome thread I listed multiple books and stories that used them. But I haven't come across halflings nearly as often. Outside of tolkien I can only think of three things, two webcomics and the comic I linked earlier, all deeply rooted in DnD. Most... altering halflings to be something else.

So yeah, I'm pushing back. Your mantra isn't working, it isn't convincing, and you can't seem to even back it up beyond restating it.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Right, but there’s no reason any animal people shouldn’t have just as deep and complex lore. It’s arbitrary that you decide certain animal-people deserve unique lore and others should just be lumped together.

... huh? You realize I just haven't actually written the lore yet, right? This is a half-baked concept I've had on the back burner for a few years. I was just using it as an example, because you seemed confused why anyone would try and consolidate races.

I wasn’t calling you boring, I was saying having gnolls, kenku, and Tabaxi all be the same race with the same lore is boring.

First of all, you quoted quite a bit and only said "how boring" which, you know, isn't exactly specifying,

Secondly... why is it boring to have a single source for similar creatures? All Demons come from the same source, is that boring?

Great, so why not explain where various animal people come from too?

... I will, when I get around to writing it? Did you really take my "this is something I want to do, but I haven't done it yet" as "here is my complete and total final version of this idea"? Why would you assume that?

Any race can be trivially reskinned, that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve just as full and rich lore as any other.

Right... but if I'm doing a cat race, and the leopard and the jaguar and the panther are incredibly closely related, to the point where most people mix them up ... why would I make three deep dive lore's instead of one that allows someone to look like a jaguar, a panther, or a leopard?

At this point I don't even understand how my trying to help you understand why people try and do this has made you so upset, you seem to think that I must absolutely make every single concept a unique race with unique lore that is compelling... but you realize that is hundreds upon hundreds of races, right?
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
I mean… Not really.

As Mecheon, animal nerd that I am, if you had a raven and a hawk and an owl sharing the same details I’d be making Words about it. Ravens are not anywhere close to raptors, and the traits we associate with hawks are far from those of owls.

Frankly Tabaxi shouldn’t be able to represent lynxes. I hard-cap them at jungle and desert associated felidae. I honestly wouldn’t even give them jaguar despite their history as that burst of speed doesn’t fit jaguars at all. Merging these together just loses their individual flavour

I mean, strewth, I’ve been arguing we expand bakemono into at least 3 seperate races because it’s lacking “turn into a teapot” or “control ghostly fire” traits to actually properly represent tanuki or kitsune

Sure, but at some point I've got to draw the line. A Snowy Owl is different from a Barn Owl, but I'm not going to make two separate races for both of them. Because then I have to do one for the Great Horned Owl.

People can complain about this if they want, but seriously it would be madness to try and make unique animal races for every single animal. And I haven't even decided how I want to do this yet, it is just a concept.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Because the entire point is people keep claiming that "halflings are braver than the other races"
Right. The key word there is.........................................races. Not classes. Races. Comparing halflings to a class is an exercise in failure, because it's a completely worthless comparison. Once you bring classes into the mix, you have to compare halflings of that class to other races of that class.
 
Last edited:

Chaosmancer

Legend
What issue, though? What is the actual issue, and is it a general issue or a “some players that overthink their hobbies as a secondary hobby don’t prefer the way this thing is” issue?

The issue of having too many races occupying the same niche? The thing I was talking about?

Why? Seems easy enough to me. I don’t see the point in doing it, but I can’t fathom what is hard about.

Okay, good for you? I've been struggling with whether I can get away with having all of them under the same header with the different mechanics, or if I need to blend some of the mechanics between them

I've been struggling with whether to make it solely mammalian, mammalian and avian, or mammalian, avian and reptilian.

I've been struggling with if I want to include Lizardfolk at all, since they don't really add anything to my games that I find valuable enough to keep.

I've been struggling with how to incorporate three completely different concepts of "Cat Person" and how I may try to balance them while still making them seem like they are the same race of people.

I'm glad you can't fathom how this might be difficult, but I'm putting quite a bit of thought into whenever I return to the idea. I don't think I want to just flatten it and remove all the unique lore and mechanics, but I don't want to make it a confused mess either.


I mean, yes, it does. Especially if you accurately quote what I actually said, and include the rest of the position you’re trying to debunk, rather than “paraphrasing” half of my position in order to “refute” the weakest possible version thereof.

But you aren't even addressing my point, so the rest of your position doesn't apply. You know, I even explained it, again, in the mulitple paragraphs below this statement. Yes, halflings have a trait that make them less likely to be frightened than other races.

Is getting frightened mean that you are not brave? If you are scared, does that mean you cannot possibly be brave? Is bravery only defined by a lack of fear?

No.

None of that changes the fact that halflings are described as especially brave, and have a trait to support that which makes it easier for them to fight through fear. Which is what bravery is.

Right here you say it. Bravery is "fighting through fear". Every adventurer does this. Even the ones that don't have a trait that makes it easier to ignore fear.

Saying a halfling having advantage makes them braver than the other characters doesn't make any narrative sense. That isn't what bravery is.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top