D&D General My Problem(s) With Halflings, and How To Create Engaging/Interesting Fantasy Races

[Chaosmancer]

The issue is that the further into the player's purview you push it, the more you allow the player to define it, the less flexible it is as a DM tool should you want to use it. You run similar risks of powergaminess and irrelevance.

Depends on what you want to do with it. I mean, I doubt the player outlined every single past life and every single event in that past life.

Heck, most DM's only get a single history to play with for hooks for players, and that is easy enough to work with, I don't see how giving them another three for the same character is somehow more restrictive.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Right. And that's why people take an issue with your stance. Because you're basically saying that because both horses and goats are domesticated hooved animals that tend to hang around farms, goats are basically just small horses.

No, I'm not. Because there are a lot of differences between goats and horses. Hardiness, speed, horns, purpose on the farm, diet, the sounds they make, their tails and how they deal with pests. There is a lot to make different.

And when I ask about halfling differences... either everyone clams up, they tell me that "you already know and dismiss it because you only want to see your own vision" or they say things like "they are friendly and kind and lucky" which really doesn't differentiate them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I mean, I probably wouldn't, but people? Yeah, people definitely would. Do. People have done and still do exactly that sort of thing. A lot. Literally on the basis of like...people in a town having darker hair, or a family line have gingers sometimes in an area where gingers are very rare, or a family having big chonky boys more often than average sized scions.

A stout family group of a people, who also have poison resistence just like dwarves do? Seems like a thing that would happen.

Maybe, but how do most people know that stout halflings have poison resistance? And why would they assume dwarves instead of something else.

And again, why write it in the book, if it isn't true and means nothing?

Why would you try to make them the only farmers?

That was something that Faolyn brought up. Since halflings are the only race that is explicitly stated as farming, then we could assume a world where halflings are the only farmers and control the world's food supply.

Of course if we don't assume they are the only farmers and that they are more than that, then that line I was given "laid back farmers who are friendly" is reduced to "laid back [people] who are friendly"

It means...that some people see a stout halfling...and think they're similar to dwarves. Like...what on Earth? This is why it's hard to even have this discussion, dude. How on earth is that a strange idea? It's just like folks saying that the Tooks have a bit of elf blood, in LoTR. You can either do something with it, or not.

So people would also see gnomes and think they have elven origins right? I mean, fey, pointed ears, they could totally do that. Lot of Gnome art looks like short elves. I'm sure there are some people who believe that about gnomes.

It isn't anywhere in the books or the lore, or mentioned in any way.

There are dozens, hundreds of rumors that people could believe about various races. An Aasimar that sins becomes a Tiefling. Firbolgs are half-gnome half giants. Goliath were humans until they were infused with the power of Earth. I could go on about probable things that people could look at one race and think.

The only one that is ever mentioned is that stout halflings have dwarven blood. And everyone is certain that it is utterly meaningless and has nothing to do with anything... so why did they put it in the book? There are lots of fake rumors that they could have added to lots of races, but the only one they did it for was the halflings? Why?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, I'm not. Because there are a lot of differences between goats and horses. Hardiness, speed, horns, purpose on the farm, diet, the sounds they make, their tails and how they deal with pests. There is a lot to make different.

And when I ask about halfling differences... either everyone clams up, they tell me that "you already know and dismiss it because you only want to see your own vision" or they say things like "they are friendly and kind and lucky" which really doesn't differentiate them.

Because we've gone over this for hundred pages. You can read the PHB like the rest of us, we're tired of quoting it for you just for you to make up excuses why nothing counts, whilst arbitrarily accepting equally flimsy fluff when it comes to the other species.

 

[Bardic Dave]

No, I'm not. Because there are a lot of differences between goats and horses. Hardiness, speed, horns, purpose on the farm, diet, the sounds they make, their tails and how they deal with pests. There is a lot to make different.

And when I ask about halfling differences... either everyone clams up, they tell me that "you already know and dismiss it because you only want to see your own vision" or they say things like "they are friendly and kind and lucky" which really doesn't differentiate them.

Let’s focus on your last statement for a second, because I think it really gets at the heart of the issue. You’ve positioned yourself as the arbiter of which distinctive traits are sufficient to differentiate halflings from humans to a satisfactory standard. Apparently supernatural luck, courage, tenacity, nimbleness, physical differences (size, body proportions, pointy ears, walking speed), stealthiness, a tendency to blend into the background, a love of creature comforts and cozy places, a tendency toward open-mindedness and being welcoming, and the various other traits that have been mentioned in this thread and/or the source material don’t pass muster for you. Fine, that’s your prerogative. Apparently, a similar list of differences between goats and horses does meet your standards. Okay, no problem.

The issue is how you’ve presented these subjective judgments as the objective truth, when they’re nothing of the sort. You keep insisting that we have some kind of burden to refute your assertion that these differences aren’t good enough, as if it’s not just a matter of differing preferences.

 

[Gammadoodler]

You realize the more you make this list, the more ridiculous it ends up sounding right?

Yeah, we get it. They are all mortal bipeds that eat. You've described everything from Trolls to pixies. But if you want to argue that there is the same level of difference between trolls and halflings as there is between humans and halflings, maybe move away from things like "can think" and give us things that actually end up mattering to most people.

I mean, if I went up to someone and said "Well, there really isn't any significant difference between a horse, a rhino and a goat" they'd act like I was insane.

And I wonder why this is so important a hill for you to build, but when asked to move past "do they have two arms, two legs, two eyes and a mouth" into something like "how are their cities different" you immediately dismiss it as "conjecture" and put no effort into it. Sure, halflings would build on a half scale compared to humans. Got anything else? Because "human city but smaller" drives straight into what we keep seeing with halflings. Human but small.

And, there are a lot of dwarven, human, and elven cities in the lore. Don't think those are exactly "conjecture" I think they kind of exist, are mapped, and have some noticeable differences.

I literally have no idea how the concept that the various "humanoid" races could be considered "basically human" is so difficult for you? The name is on the goddamn tin.

Separately, you realize your comparison of rhino, horse and goat is like a perfect analog to the halfling conversation we're currently having right?

You say it would be insane to state that there are no significant differences between the three of those creatures but your argument for halflings being basically human is perfectly rational.

The part I dismissed as conjecture includes dragonborn facial anatomy, and racial patterns of conversation. It's the same type of conjecture that leads people to conclude that centaurs cannot climb. It's just the lens you use to view creatures. It's neither factual, nor universal.

The city building would also be my conjecture, but... they take up less space, weigh less, and their stuff weighs less so yes, smaller structures, but also lighter weight materials, longer spans, etc. It also means that halfling dwellings can exist in more locations both underground and above it, for example as tree houses, on cliff faces, etc. In addition, they have a wider variety of creatures that can serve as mounts, with all the agility, speed, and carrying capacity benefits mounts can provide, with far fewer of the burdens so structures and spaces can afford to be generally more accommodating to creatures used as mounts. Do you see how all this starts adding together? Ultimately, I think you are vastly underselling how important scale is to how we live. I mean, would you say that giants are just big humans?

Then,
If you start layering in considerations for how an innately sociable race, that values having a good time, is lucky, nimble, and less susceptible to fear might choose to live...yeah...verrry different.

Buuut.. all of that..is also conjecture, so I'm not going to claim it as absolute truth.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Depends on what you want to do with it. I mean, I doubt the player outlined every single past life and every single event in that past life.

Heck, most DM's only get a single history to play with for hooks for players, and that is easy enough to work with, I don't see how giving them another three for the same character is somehow more restrictive.

Sure, and the gaps are 100% in the DMs control. Exactly as I stated in the first place.

 

[Faolyn]

Why would you try to make them the only farmers?

I suggested to Chaosmancer the idea that halflings could be considered the best farmers and chefs (in the same way that dwarfs are considered the best miners and smiths), or that city-dwelling humans could rely on halflings to do the farming for them. And Chaosmancer decided that I meant that they could be the only farmers.

 

[Faolyn]

In a game where everything is very concrete, I agree.

Yeah, that's what I meant: specifically for D&D and games like it. I don't know from Monsterhearts (beyond that it has a sexual element that ensures I likely won't play it), but in a system like D&D and with a typical D&D setting, I'd say it's very difficult to have something both playable and still mysterious.

 

[Faolyn]

That's followed up in the next section "Each birth represents an elf soul that has been to Arvandor and returned. Mortal elves cannot know if it is the soul of someone recently dead or someone who died millennia ago. They cannot even be certain it is an elf of the same world. The only assurance they have is that it is an elf of their own kind, for when the primal elves went against Corellon and took permanent shapes, they chose this fate for themselves." There's a little bit more about it and what they call The First Reflection.

Has anyone done a campaign yet where elf souls are getting captured so either new elves aren't being born or they're being born soulless?

 

[Bardic Dave]

Has anyone done a campaign yet where elf souls are getting captured so either new elves aren't being born or they're being born soulless?

Interesting idea! You could incorporate this into Tomb of Annihilation also.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Has anyone done a campaign yet where elf souls are getting captured so either new elves aren't being born or they're being born soulless?

This sounds like a good quest line. Somebody's gotta stand up to those damn dirty elves.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Has anyone done a campaign yet where elf souls are getting captured so either new elves aren't being born or they're being born soulless?

Reminds me of the Fionavar Tapestry

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I suggested to Chaosmancer the idea that halflings could be considered the best farmers and chefs (in the same way that dwarfs are considered the best miners and smiths), or that city-dwelling humans could rely on halflings to do the farming for them. And Chaosmancer decided that I meant that they could be the only farmers.

I'm not reading this whole thread, as this debate seems a little bit like it has an obvious answer...

But I want to say, a setting in which the halflings are the only race that can master mass-production of food through agriculture and therefore have a ton of leverage over all of urban society functioning, and therefore a ton of power... it's a pretty interesting premise!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Maybe, but how do most people know that stout halflings have poison resistance? And why would they assume dwarves instead of something else.

And again, why write it in the book, if it isn't true and means nothing?

One person said it could mean nothing.

That was something that Faolyn brought up. Since halflings are the only race that is explicitly stated as farming, then we could assume a world where halflings are the only farmers and control the world's food supply.

No, they didn't. they said that you could make such a world, if you wanted to, and it wouldn't be out of line with the PHB lore, and I'm pretty sure they didn't actually say that they would be the only farmers, just that many human cities might rely on halfling farmers.

Of course if we don't assume they are the only farmers and that they are more than that, then that line I was given "laid back farmers who are friendly" is reduced to "laid back [people] who are friendly"

No, it isn't. You're jumping to that as if it is a necessarily conclusion, but it is not. "laid back friendly farmers" is a quick description, not some sort of literal statement of exactly what all halflings are. It's what their vibe is, in general. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time distinguishing between general ideas about things that are common, and universal literal statements of absolute facts about all halflings.

The only one that is ever mentioned is that stout halflings have dwarven blood. And everyone is certain that it is utterly meaningless and has nothing to do with anything... so why did they put it in the book? There are lots of fake rumors that they could have added to lots of races, but the only one they did it for was the halflings? Why?

Did you poll a significant number of people? I only ever saw one person reply to you about that, so where are you getting "everyone" from? Why are you so bent on this throwaway line? Stout halflings resemble dwarves more than they do humans, in some ways, and people in the world take note of that and wonder why. What is confusing about that? I genuinely don't understand why these things bother or confuse you, in part because you refuse to extrapolate your reasoning for anything without hyperbolic melodrama.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not reading this whole thread, as this debate seems a little bit like it has an obvious answer...

But I want to say, a setting in which the halflings are the only race that can master mass-production of food through agriculture and therefore have a ton of leverage over all of urban society functioning, and therefore a ton of power... it's a pretty interesting premise!

I actually am working on a short story campaign (ie, we are not playing 1-20 sandbox game, it's a limited campaign with a more narrow premise) where they play the protectors of an empire in the Ancient Persian style of governance (ie essentially federalism with kings), and that empire is ruled primarily by halflings, because every time the various kingdoms went to war, halflings rolled their eyes and kept society functioning, and kept being the ones bringing warring factions to the table to hammer out a peace, and also tended to be the people in bureaucratic positions of practical utility, and essentially accidentally took over a large swath of the known world through quiet competence and level headedness. And most people are fine with it, because, well, they're very good rulers, and there are bad greedy violent High Kings extremely rarely.

Well, all of that and also, halflings at war are terrifying, and since the gnomes were early adopters of the "let the halflings deal with it" attitude toward governance, the eventually formed a block that, when those outside the empire tried to take pieces of it, or when rebellions formed around charismatic and ambitious young humans, and the core folk of the empire were forced to fight, they did so with a swift, fierce, enthusiastic, competence, that made it harder to rally folk to a "lets go attack halflings" banner.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Let’s focus on your last statement for a second, because I think it really gets at the heart of the issue. You’ve positioned yourself as the arbiter of which distinctive traits are sufficient to differentiate halflings from humans to a satisfactory standard. Apparently supernatural luck, courage, tenacity, nimbleness, physical differences (size, body proportions, pointy ears, walking speed), stealthiness, a tendency to blend into the background, a love of creature comforts and cozy places, a tendency toward open-mindedness and being welcoming, and the various other traits that have been mentioned in this thread and/or the source material don’t pass muster for you. Fine, that’s your prerogative. Apparently, a similar list of differences between goats and horses does meet your standards. Okay, no problem.

The issue is how you’ve presented these subjective judgments as the objective truth, when they’re nothing of the sort. You keep insisting that we have some kind of burden to refute your assertion that these differences aren’t good enough, as if it’s not just a matter of differing preferences.

I've positioned myself as having an opinion, yes. I think my opinion is right, because I support it with evidence. And whenever someone decides I am wrong... they just say I am wrong and don't really support their points with anything at all.

Supernatural luck is a differentiating factor (note that "supernatural lucky" is different from "lucky") however it is incredibly hard to actually play supernatural luck in a game like DnD. Sure, I can narrate any misses as "luck" or I can narrate their successes as "luck" but that is just a thin coat of paint over the game.

Courage? Tenacity? Love of Creature Comforts? Open-Mindedness? Welcoming? "various other traits"? Those are all personality traits. And, man, out of a list of about 11 traits, that is 6 of them. So half of what you listed is purely personality. Do I no longer have a halfling if they prefer sleeping in the dirt and don't like strangers? I would certainly hope not. I would hope that I could play a dwarf who likes his creature comforts, is welcoming to all people, and has courage and tenacity. That's why I find these traits weak for the race, if there was more like there are for some of the other races, then it would work better. Or if it worked deeply into their culture and/or mechanics. But other than resistance to magical fear, none of these traits actually come up in halfling mechanics, and with them being pastoral farmers who want to avoid trouble by avoiding notice, then their courage and tenacity rarely shows up.

Then we come to nimbleness, stealthiness, and a tendecy to blend into the background (also known as stealthiness). You know, I got to thinking about this, and this is only a sort of? Yeah, they get +2 dex and this makes them more nimble and more stealthy and better at picking pockets, but that's something that is easy to replicate in dozens of ways. So true, but is there more than just +2 dex? Well... not as much as I think people think. Halflings baseline can just move through an enemies space. That's it. No special bonuses to being stealthy. The only stealthy ability comes from lightfoots, who can hide behind creatures. Which, is a cool thing, and I'd take it... except that it completely cuts Stout Halflings out of the equation. Why are we ignoring them when describing halflings? Poison resistance has actually not come up once as something people attribute to halflings, but it is half of all halflings. It reminds me of when people were going on about how everyone forgets about Forest Gnomes when talking about gnomes.

And then "physical differences". Which is almost all "they are short" but you added a weird one in there. Pointed ears.

To my understanding, halflings had rounded ears, so I started looking it up and you were right... but it led to something interesting. Can anyone tell the gnome from the halfling?

And it is especially amusing because I avoided the images that I saw showing up in both image searches

 

[Chaosmancer]

I literally have no idea how the concept that the various "humanoid" races could be considered "basically human" is so difficult for you? The name is on the goddamn tin.

The idea that "humanoid" is similiar to "human" isn't the problem.

The fact that you are using physical descriptions such as "two arms and two legs" and "can think" and then saying that since all races have basic cognition and four limbs that they are basically the same thing is what I'm finding difficult. Because, shocking, being similiar to humans physiologically has never been an issue. I haven't seen someone stating that "well halflings have heads, so they are too similar" yet you seem to be thinking the reverse is somehow making a point.

Separately, you realize your comparison of rhino, horse and goat is like a perfect analog to the halfling conversation we're currently having right?

You say it would be insane to state that there are no significant differences between the three of those creatures but your argument for halflings being basically human is perfectly rational.

I was talking a lot about their culture. Halflings seem to constantly be relgated to just being short, happy humans. Meanwhile simply looking at a goat does not make you think it is a small rhino or a small horse. Those both exist, and neither of them are goats. But other than insisting on their personality being different.. what actually would make someone look at a halfling and not think they are a small human?

The part I dismissed as conjecture includes dragonborn facial anatomy, and racial patterns of conversation. It's the same type of conjecture that leads people to conclude that centaurs cannot climb. It's just the lens you use to view creatures. It's neither factual, nor universal.

I don't believe I have ever seen a dragonborn drawn with lips. Having a completely different facial structure would make you sound different. And I don't think anyone would call that "baseless conjecture". In fact, I'd say it is pretty factual, since large changes to a human's facial structure can change how their voice sounds.

The city building would also be my conjecture, but... they take up less space, weigh less, and their stuff weighs less so yes, smaller structures, but also lighter weight materials, longer spans, etc. It also means that halfling dwellings can exist in more locations both underground and above it, for example as tree houses, on cliff faces, etc. In addition, they have a wider variety of creatures that can serve as mounts, with all the agility, speed, and carrying capacity benefits mounts can provide, with far fewer of the burdens so structures and spaces can afford to be generally more accommodating to creatures used as mounts. Do you see how all this starts adding together? Ultimately, I think you are vastly underselling how important scale is to how we live. I mean, would you say that giants are just big humans?

This is actually pretty cool. I like this idea. We should rewrite halflings to include things like this instead of just living in hidden farms and in human cities, with no mounted creatures or even beast taming even mentioned.

I would also argue that they don't use "lighter weight materials" because they have access to the same materials as everyone else.

Then,
If you start layering in considerations for how an innately sociable race, that values having a good time, is lucky, nimble, and less susceptible to fear might choose to live...yeah...verrry different.

Buuut.. all of that..is also conjecture, so I'm not going to claim it as absolute truth.

And again, nothing of any of that appears. AND THAT IS MY PROBLEM.

You obviously don't dismiss how cool it would be to have a halfling city on a cliffside, with tightropes connecting the buildings as they fly larger birds to scout the area. That's AWESOME. It is also complete unlike any description of halflings in the core books. The closest is Talenta halflings riding pterosaurs

So, why would it be a bad thing to include that sort of stuff in the halfling write up? Why would it hurt the game to make their cities take more advantage of their physiology? Why not expand them beyond pastoral farmlands and have some of these actually cool ideas in the game?

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I've positioned myself as having an opinion, yes. I think my opinion is right, because I support it with evidence. And whenever someone decides I am wrong... they just say I am wrong and don't really support their points with anything at all.

I mean, a cursory glance at this thread shows this is demonstrably false, every person replying to you has tried to support their points.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure, and the gaps are 100% in the DMs control. Exactly as I stated in the first place.

So... "everything the player doesn't describe is 100% in the DM's hands"

Yes. That is how the game works. What you stated before was "Everything is 100% in the DM's hands". I'm sure you can see the differences between the two statements.