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

[Chaosmancer]

Multiple times. That and that they aren't "Important" with a capital "I". Because apparently you can only be important if you have kingdoms or be persuasive enough (which is completely different than being likeable) to be diplomats or have some special purpose like keeping libraries of knowledge. That somehow being the literal little people that are happy with what they have is not good enough.

But it is tough to find that when 90% of the posts are playing victim because people don't want anything different.

And yet I never said that they make poor PCs or that they make poor "PHB fodder" the things Sabathius actually said.

And I don't know why you would capitolize the "I". Do you think I want to make them the most important thing in the game... never made that claim. Do I want them to be more than wall paper in the world that never really matters? Yes, I'd like that.

A purpose would help that. It isn't neccessary, but Faolyn did try and tell me they are already Lorekeepers, and I find the idea appealing along with their traveling and tying them more tightly to bards, which ties into their love of stories. It is a nice little expansion of things they have.

I also have no idea why you want to keep harping on "persuasive isn't likeable". Halflings are already supposedly the people that get along with everyone, that can act as bridges between various people. Why not expand that into a more common role where they do that more often? The historical figure of Jigonhsaseh is a perfect example of the kind of diplomacy I could see halflings engaging in, and it wouldn't change much about them that you claim to like... except that every single halfling wouldn't be an unimportant everyman that everyone overlooks. Some of them would have done something to earn them respect of their peers. People would appreciate their strengths.


Maybe that is the core of our disagreement. I don't see how it is more interesting to have every halfling in the world content with what they have. They have essentially reached a state of perfect being as a race, none of them are unhappy or feel any need to improve the world. I'd rather take their kindness, appreciation for little things, and all that and have it actively working in the world to improve it, rather than sitting in a field of flowers watching butterflies.

Also, since this is the second post in a row responding to me saying that I did not make arguments I made... do you maybe wonder why so many of my posts include me defending myself?

 

[Gammadoodler]

I truly do not understand how people can say that "realism" isn't important for Fantasy. It really speaks to not understanding how fantasy operates. You need elements of realism to support the structure of the fantasy.

And, I believe I've stated this. They've hit all the right notes for hobbits. But they seemed to ignore the fact that they aren't Tolkien and they shouldn't be just making hobbits.




You are right. I did say that.

I did not say that halflings make poor PCs.
I did not say that halflings make poor "PHB fodder" which I assume is tied to the idea that I somehow want to remove them from the PHB, which hasn't really ever been my position.

So, as I told Sabathius, the arguments they claim I made, I never made.

I can't tell. Is this nit-picking.

Because, unless I've badly misunderstood your posts, your stated position is that, as written, halflings are narratively/thematically objectively unsuitable for D&D as a game.

Folks have had varying arguments regarding suitability generally, but I believe that no matter the individual opinions in that regard, the one consistent pushback has been that no personal opinion represents objective truth.

If you are now saying that this is not your perspective, then you should receive a lot less resistance, as most of us realize that reasonable people may disagree.

That said, if that has been the case the whole time, then you should revisit your tactics used to combat misunderstanding, as I don't think there has been any ambiguity in how we've interpreted your position.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Dude, stop. This is ridiculous.

The PHB isn’t meant to cover everything. Most people have no trouble extrapolating “General Halfling Stuff+Nomadic Traders”. It’s a pretty clean fit.

So, to go back and repeat the last few posts.

You responded to Sabathius who seemed to want to slam me about seeing halflings as a Monolithic culture. Because they have two other cultures than the one commonly talked about.

So, I asked you. Tell me about this Nomad culture? How are they different from the main culture?

You responded with "Stop. This is ridiculous, the PHB isn't mean to cover everything"

Which is weird, isn't it? You said the PHB gave us two cultures. One of those cultures was Nomadic halflings. And now you are claiming that the PHB isn't meant to cover nomadic halfings? That we are just supposed to extrapolate "general halfling" + "nomad"?

So... they didn't give us a new culture. They just said "and some are nomads" and you decided to run with it. Because, I'm pretty sure as nomads they can't do a lot of the things that the PHB claims halflings do.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The bolded text is literally a blatant falsehood. Several people have spoken on why Halflings are overlooked and underestimated, ITT, mostly in direct reply to you.

Nope. Unless you are referring to the people who claim that they are short (not a reason that makes any sense) and lack magic (false) and are just common people (true of 80% of the rest of the races as well, and false because halfling adventurers exist)

I didn't think people were seriously considering those reasons. Especially since two of them are just out right wrong.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You quoted me saying that I 100% agreed with you that halfling lore and inclusion in stories is a good thing and would be something we would like to see.

You went on to explain that YOU TOO would like to see them explored further. Multiple other posters have agreed that they too would like to see them explored further.

You also claim you don't see them as monolithically "friendly farmers" but also filling other archetypes in your world the same as the rest of us are saying we see them in ours.

So, at this point I think we all agree that we all agree and can go home, no?

We could. Too bad people immediately started accusing me of arguments I didn't make.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah that's the thing. A lot of players do use them. Why should they have to lose them? Because the "lore" doesn't satisfy a small subset of players who can choose to lose or ban them at their own tables as they wish?

Yeah, we should go over to all those people who want to remove halflings from the game and tell them to stop.

looks into an empty room

Huh, they seem to have all left on their own. Your halflings are safe from being removed from the game. Now we can focus on improving on their lore in the game.

 

[carkl3000]

What effects are you saying are "pretty clearly" non-magical? You mention Dragon Fear but that is entirely ambigious, dragon's do have a lot of inherent magic and if this is meant to be non-magical, why are you immune for only 24 hours after you save? Why is simply knowing a dragon is nearby is enough?

A hag's Hideous Appearance? Again, innately and powerfully magical individual, and I've seen some pretty terrible things, not sure that if I was in a life or death fight I'd feel intense fear or flee from someone who was just incredibly ugly.

I'm not taking away halflings ability to resist non-magical fear, I just don't see any effects for non-magical fear in the game. And as for "not very nice" again, I find taking away a player's control of their character to be a problem. I played in a game very early on in my time with DnD where another player tried to force my character to be scared by rolling intimidation. Being told "this is very scary to you, you are terrified" isn't good RP.

I explained already in another post. The Monster Manual distinguishes between magical fear and non-magical fear. Nalfeshnee's Horror Nimbus? Magical. Beholder's Fear Ray? Magical. Banshee's Horrifying Visage? not Magical. Pit Fiend's Fear Aura? not Magical. If you don't distinguish, that's your homebrew.

Wow. Assuming characters, assuming stats, and mocking players for not wanting their emotional autonomy removed. This isn't to "save their feelings" it is to recognize that the inner world of a character is one of the only things the player gets to control, and circumventing that without good reason is poor sportsmanship.

Except apparently, for you, when magic is involved.

I'm saying that one does not need to invoke magic to impose fear. People in the real world don't get to choose when they are or are not terrified to the point of being incapacitated just the same as they don't get to choose whether or not they are knocked out cold by a baseball bat to the head.

And finally, even if you do want to say that the frightened condition is always magical in nature, it doesn't follow that magic resistance must apply.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So do you think the portrayal of Halflings in the PHB is a problem or don’t you? Because it sure seems like you do, and that appears to be the contentious issue for most people. Being ok with future lore expansion is not the same as having a problem with the PHB Halfling. Seems the kumbayas may have been premature.

And for your information, that’s a halfling in that painting. I agree they aren’t quite as distinctive as certain other races, but I fail to see why that’s a problem?

edit: for context, my participation in this thread started with me saying I like Halflings as they are currently portrayed and detailing why, and then being told my post was “part of the problem”. That’s a far cry from “all we’re saying is a few more pages in a future book might be nice”!

You know whose lore people aren't asking to be expanded? Elves. Nobody I have ever seen has sat down and said "We really need to focus more on Elf lore."

Generally not dwarves as well, though there is the occassional question about food in mountains/underground.

So, there might be a difference in the lore of the people who we aren't asking for expansions on and the lore of the people we are asking for expansions on. Like, if we are proposing "writing more lore is the solution" don't you think that naturally "there is a problem" has to exist?

You can disagree that there is any sort of problem, but if you are okay with our solution, why should it matter?

 

[Chaosmancer]

So if an NPC with proficiency in intimidate wants to scare/worry the PCs into backing down and momentarily stopping pursuit of someone else (and the NPC makes a truly a massive intimidate check), how do you describe what happens to the players? What are their options if they don't want to be intimidated but roll really badly on whatever roll you call for to not be momentarily overawed?

I never use persuasion or intimidation against the party. I present what the NPC is saying and they decide if they are intimidated or not.

If the players decide that the Orc in magical fullplate with a flaming axe staring them down while they are bloody and have no spells isn't scary enough to deter them, then that is their perogative. Just like I don't roll persuasion and then tell them that the merchant convinced them that their characters will go on a fetch quest for him.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is addressed in 5e as well, but differently. In 5e there is magic that is a part of the way the world works, (this is like 3e Su) and there is magic caused by spells. The former includes the animating spark of a warforged, dragon flight (if you feel it's necessary to explain the physics which IMO it's not), maybe even Pit Fiend's Fear Aura or dragon's Frightful Presence, or Banshee's Horrifying Visage, etc. but by RAW none of those things are spells that can be dispelled or resisted by magic resistance.

I also just disagree with the idea that magic has to be involved in order to cause a character to involuntarily be frightened. Fear in the real world is very much an involuntary and physiological thing. If someone ahead of me in line at the bank pulls a gun, I didn't just choose to pee my pants.

And you also aren't a veteran warrior who has stared down and dealt death a hundred times before. Or do you think cops "pee their pants" when they see a guy with a gun. Or Marines. Or the Swiss Guard.