D&D (2024) No Dwarf, Halfling, and Orc suborgins, lineages, and legacies

LuisCarlos17f · Mar 17, 2024

I have said halflings and gnomes are too focused into stealth classes, but as nPCs they are one of the marks of identity of D&D. These don't appear in the most of the rest of fantasy franchises.

And if they are too cute, then they help too much to add that family-friendly tone wanted by Hasbro.

Other point is if they are smaller, then they can ride some flyer monsters.

Now thanks Warcraft the orcs can't fall in the oblivion so easily. Even the ondonti, the peaciful orcs, could return as PC players, but with nerferd traits, of course.

Mind of tempest · Mar 17, 2024

look halflings should be moved out of the common options slot as they are fundamentally not designed to fill it and something moved up toward the fourth slot.
but otherwise, we have had this discussion to death.

LuisCarlos17f said:
I have said halflings and gnomes are too focused into stealth classes, but as nPCs they are one of the marks of identity of D&D. These don't appear in the most of the rest of fantasy franchises.

And if they are too cute, then they help too much to add that family-friendly tone wanted by Hasbro.

Other point is if they are smaller, then they can ride some flyer monsters.

Now thanks Warcraft the orcs can't fall in the oblivion so easily. Even the ondonti, the peaciful orcs, could return as PC players, but with nerferd traits, of course.

View attachment 352045

mostly its because halflings and gnomes have glaring flaws for a lot of settings, thus cut them out.
halflings are all sort of hobbits and thus only really work in a setting framework that Tolkien used which is rather hard for all other fantasy to do as they are rather divergent at this point.

gnomes lack a clear core of gnomedom or clear stories to build off meaning it is had to know what they should be, many also gave them tech which tends to get restricted to keep swords in play.

the point is not just what they offer the player but whoever is making the setting.

tetrasodium · Mar 17, 2024

Mind of tempest said:
look halflings should be moved out of the common options slot as they are fundamentally not designed to fill it and something moved up toward the fourth slot.
but otherwise, we have had this discussion to death.

mostly its because halflings and gnomes have glaring flaws for a lot of settings, thus cut them out.
halflings are all sort of hobbits and thus only really work in a setting framework that Tolkien used which is rather hard for all other fantasy to do as they are rather divergent at this point.

gnomes lack a clear core of gnomedom or clear stories to build off meaning it is had to know what they should be, many also gave them tech which tends to get restricted to keep swords in play.

the point is not just what they offer the player but whoever is making the setting.

4th slot? I might have missed it, but what is 4th slot?

Mind of tempest · Mar 17, 2024

tetrasodium said:
4th slot? I might have missed it, but what is 4th slot?

in the 5e phb it defines two great categories of the player options common and uncommon, halfling is listed as a common options and in pre 5e was and always include in official settings option for some reason.

it should have never been like this as halflings are the hardest to use in a way the setting designers want

Crimson Longinus · Mar 17, 2024

Hussar said:
No. It's because people can't simply accept that halflings just aren't that popular. They've been at the bottom of the ranking (or very nearly) since pretty much day 1. Yet, when I point this out, I'm told that "facts don't support your case". Despite the fact that it's been shown repeatedly that halflings score just a bit better than gnomes and maybe half-orcs, depending on which poll we want to look at.

At no point have halflings EVER been popular. THIS is the point I keep making and for some reason I keep getting told I'm absolutely wrong and that I only hate halflings. It's utterly bizarre since at no point have I ever been accused of disliking gnomes despite me saying exactly the same thing about gnomes.

Show me a single example from D&D, in any edition, where halflings are popular. Why do you think 4e tried to rewrite halfligns? Why do you think 3e rewrote halflings? Why were halflings rewritten to be Kender in Dragonlance despite every other race staying exactly standard?

Every setting rewrites halflings - Eberron, Dark Sun, Etc. WHy? Because they are so massively popular?

No one has claimed they're massively popular. They are just popular enough. It was bottom two, now it is bottom three. The goalposts keep moving so you can discriminate against halflings. Halflings are almost as popular as dwarves, yet you're not talking about ditching them. If you were talking about gnomes only, you might have a case. And of course removing both halflings and gnomes like you seem to want is utterly bonkers. These species are very similar, so getting rid of both would remove small human-like option altogether. (No kobolds or goblins are not the same thing.) It would be like removing both elves and half-elves.

Crimson Longinus · Mar 17, 2024

Mind of tempest said:
in the 5e phb it defines two great categories of the player options common and uncommon, halfling is listed as a common options and in pre 5e was and always include in official settings option for some reason.

it should have never been like this as halflings are the hardest to use in a way the setting designers want

I think the whole common and uncommon divide is pointless and unnecessarily. It also took me years to realise that it even existed, I just kept wondering why the species are not in alphabetical order.

tetrasodium · Mar 17, 2024

Mind of tempest said:
in the 5e phb it defines two great categories of the player options common and uncommon, halfling is listed as a common options and in pre 5e was and always include in official settings option for some reason.

it should have never been like this as halflings are the hardest to use in a way the setting designers want

I think some of that boils down to wotc avoids the more evocative and dramatic halflings of eberron and athas in favor of continuing to use phb halflings as well... Let's admit that they are just hobbits with the serial numbers scratched off.

Gnomes would probably be improved by shifting focus more on zilargo society than slapstick comic relief tinker gnomes too.

Mind of tempest · Mar 17, 2024

Crimson Longinus said:
I think the whole common and uncommon divide is pointless and unnecessarily. It also took me years to realise that it even existed, I just kept wondering why the species are not in alphabetical order.

yeah alphabetical would be faster.

honestly, it's considering setting niches that should be done better, not everything PHB needs to be in every setting past things so obvious as rogue or fighter and humans.

CreamCloud0 · Mar 17, 2024

Mind of tempest said:
yeah alphabetical would be faster.

honestly, it's considering setting niches that should be done better, not everything PHB needs to be in every setting past things so obvious as rogue or fighter and humans.

Oh no they can’t ever say something doesn’t exist in a setting! That means the content people buy would be implied to be worthless for that campaign and if it’s worthless then they might not buy it! and that means we get less money!

Neonchameleon · Mar 17, 2024

Crimson Longinus said:
No one has claimed they're massively popular. They are just popular enough. It was bottom two, now it is bottom three. The goalposts keep moving so you can discriminate against halflings. Halflings are almost as popular as dwarves, yet you're not talking about ditching them.

When it was pointed out that halflings were more popular than half orcs then from memory suddenly and miraculously he wanted to ditch the bottom three not the bottom two.

Crimson Longinus said:
If you were talking about gnomes only, you might have a case.

Gnomes have always been a problem case and the best edition removed them from the PHB. The problem is that "gnome" just means "little magical person" with little beyond that and includes anything from humanoids to rock-spirits with sizes anywhere from inches tall to halfling-height. There's no clear mythological consensus other than "small and magical" and no clear D&D consensus, with the strongest D&D vision probably coming from tinker gnomes.

Crimson Longinus said:
And of course removing both halflings and gnomes like you seem to want is utterly bonkers. These species are very similar, so getting rid of both would remove small human-like option altogether. (No kobolds or goblins are not the same thing.) It would be like removing both elves and half-elves.

This has always been a point I've made. I've also suggested D&D gnomes should become a halfling subrace (feywild halflings).

D&D (2024) No Dwarf, Halfling, and Orc suborgins, lineages, and legacies

LuisCarlos17f

Legend

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics

tetrasodium

Legend

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics

Crimson Longinus

Legend

Crimson Longinus

Legend

tetrasodium

Legend

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.

Neonchameleon

Legend

Similar Threads