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

[Mind of tempest]

Note, if you follow the link back in my last post, it takes you to a table that shows the distribution of classes. See, to me, that table is what things should look like. Yeah, sure, Druids and Monks are sucking hind tit, but, since the spread is only 6-12% from top to bottom, it's not exactly damning. Note, we have nothing since Artificers have been brought forward, so, who knows what the distribution is now.

But, the races distribution is basically the top 5 and then everyone else. That says to me that the "everyone else" needs some work because it's certainly not very appealing to players. It's not 1974 anymore. There's no reason we have to have our "base races" modeled after Lord of the Rings. If any race isn't really making the cut, then, well, it's time to try something else. I mean, @Neonchameleon talked about how there aren't other races nipping at the heels. I disagree. Even by that table, Aaracockra and Aasimar both look to have a decent shot. A flying race in the PHB would be outstanding.

Again, I'm only looking at a tiny, tiny slice of information. Maybe halflings have surged back ahead and no one is playing dwarves. I dunno. Could be. Obviously, without more information, it's pretty hard to make any actual decision. But, again, since halflings are down at the bottom of the barrel, and always have been, right from the word go back in 1974, maybe, just maybe it might be time to give something else a try? It's not like there was some huge time of halfling popularity. They've never been particularly commonly played.

At 5.9%, that means a typical group (which is 5 players, not 6 as @doctorbadwolf tries to claim) will have a halfling in the group 1 group in 4.

The only reason we're having this discussion at all is the Gnome Effect. Removing halflings might impact up to 25% of tables, so, that's a large enough number that we have to keep them in, even though they are basically just dead weight. Exactly the same conversations we had in 4e when they pulled gnomes.

honestly, I want them to remove the halfling to see what the argument for their return would be as I am betting pure tradition not any substance, now good substance would be nice as then we would know what matters to people about them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Note, if you follow the link back in my last post, it takes you to a table that shows the distribution of classes. See, to me, that table is what things should look like. Yeah, sure, Druids and Monks are sucking hind tit, but, since the spread is only 6-12% from top to bottom, it's not exactly damning. Note, we have nothing since Artificers have been brought forward, so, who knows what the distribution is now.

But, the races distribution is basically the top 5 and then everyone else. That says to me that the "everyone else" needs some work because it's certainly not very appealing to players. It's not 1974 anymore. There's no reason we have to have our "base races" modeled after Lord of the Rings. If any race isn't really making the cut, then, well, it's time to try something else. I mean, @Neonchameleon talked about how there aren't other races nipping at the heels. I disagree. Even by that table, Aaracockra and Aasimar both look to have a decent shot. A flying race in the PHB would be outstanding.

Again, I'm only looking at a tiny, tiny slice of information. Maybe halflings have surged back ahead and no one is playing dwarves. I dunno. Could be. Obviously, without more information, it's pretty hard to make any actual decision. But, again, since halflings are down at the bottom of the barrel, and always have been, right from the word go back in 1974, maybe, just maybe it might be time to give something else a try? It's not like there was some huge time of halfling popularity. They've never been particularly commonly played.

At 5.9%, that means a typical group (which is 5 players, not 6 as @doctorbadwolf tries to claim) will have a halfling in the group 1 group in 4.

The only reason we're having this discussion at all is the Gnome Effect. Removing halflings might impact up to 25% of tables, so, that's a large enough number that we have to keep them in, even though they are basically just dead weight. Exactly the same conversations we had in 4e when they pulled gnomes.

Classes are major rules element, they're a source of overwhelming majority of the character's mechanics. Races are not this; they provide relatively little rules. If some classes were wildly more popular than others this indeed might indicate a problem, but it's not so with races; they're mostly a flavour element at this point.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Classes are major rules element, they're a source of overwhelming majority of the character's mechanics. Races are not this; they provide relatively little rules. If some classes were wildly more popular than others this indeed might indicate a problem, but it's not so with races; they're mostly a flavour element at this point.

does flavour not matter? if so why not just get rid of all of them?

 

[Cadence]

At what point do they receive martial training? Practice sneaking? Learn how to maintain their gear?

Before Isengard, how many times did a halfling actively participate in a fight, rather than just run away or cower? I can think of a single time. For 50% of a trilogy. So yeah, they really didn't gain a whole lot of combat experience.

Experience doing one thing that suddenly turns into ability to do.another feels very D&D to me (at least all the versions that don't require one to go off and train in order to use the XP to level).

 

[Hussar]

You mean this thing according to which the halflings are not the least popular PHB race and there are no non-PHB races more popular than them?

At what point did I ever say that halflings are the least popular PHB race? I'm sorry, but, I believe you have me confused with someone else.

Again, for like the fifteenth time, in a thread about halflings, I simply haven't talked about other races. All these "whatabout's" are frankly rather pointless. Like I said before, I would have zero problem giving the axe to several of the PHB races and put new ones in. Good grief, fifty years is long enough to be shackled to the corpse of Tolkien. The fact that as soon as D&D added new races to the PHB lineup, they shot up to the most popular races in the game (barring humans basically) says to me that there is a fair amount of demand out there for the PHB to see some revision.

Now, just so I'm not accused yet again of hating on someone's fun or whatever, I would place gnomes and any other race that didn't make the cut into the DMG with that honking big list of other playable races. I mean, good grief, ELADRIN make that list above. There's a race that people lost their freaking minds about when 4e added it. It's buried somewhere in the middle of the DMG as a completely optional rule, and they're STILL more popular than Stout Halflings and Rock Gnomes. I mean, sheesh. Me saying that halflings aren't that popular should not be as controversial as folks are making it out to be. This is getting into "rain is wet" territory.

But, I have to say, one good thing in this thread is @Dannyalcatraz 's humour. That's been some seriously great zingers.

 

[Hussar]

Classes are major rules element, they're a source of overwhelming majority of the character's mechanics. Races are not this; they provide relatively little rules. If some classes were wildly more popular than others this indeed might indicate a problem, but it's not so with races; they're mostly a flavour element at this point.

Y'know what? Thinking about it, I actually rather agree with this. It is how a lot of players view race - largely just a line on the character sheet and the source of a couple of powers. I've seen a lot of players who treat race as a flavor element and ignore it for the most part.

I would rather that didn't happen. I think the choice of your character's race should inform how you play that character just about as much as the class of that character. Certainly as much as background, bonds and whatnot should. And, yes, I know there are more than a few players out there that ignore that stuff too.

I guess that's my issue. If race is just largely flavor, then why are we seeing such a heavy weighting on certain races? Why are dragonborn so much more popular than, well, halflings? ((I'm making an example, not picking a fight)) If racial choices are just flavor, then shouldn't the choices be relatively equal then? Even if we put humans to one side, there is still a pretty heavy skewing of the played races towards certain options. Wouldn't it be better for the game if those options were fairly equally popular?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

At what point did I ever say that halflings are the least popular PHB race? I'm sorry, but, I believe you have me confused with someone else.

Again, for like the fifteenth time, in a thread about halflings, I simply haven't talked about other races. All these "whatabout's" are frankly rather pointless. Like I said before, I would have zero problem giving the axe to several of the PHB races and put new ones in. Good grief, fifty years is long enough to be shackled to the corpse of Tolkien. The fact that as soon as D&D added new races to the PHB lineup, they shot up to the most popular races in the game (barring humans basically) says to me that there is a fair amount of demand out there for the PHB to see some revision.

Now, just so I'm not accused yet again of hating on someone's fun or whatever, I would place gnomes and any other race that didn't make the cut into the DMG with that honking big list of other playable races. I mean, good grief, ELADRIN make that list above. There's a race that people lost their freaking minds about when 4e added it. It's buried somewhere in the middle of the DMG as a completely optional rule, and they're STILL more popular than Stout Halflings and Rock Gnomes. I mean, sheesh. Me saying that halflings aren't that popular should not be as controversial as folks are making it out to be. This is getting into "rain is wet" territory.

But, I have to say, one good thing in this thread is @Dannyalcatraz 's humour. That's been some seriously great zingers.

If we trust your chart and go by popularity halflings are in. There are nine races in the PHB and halflings are on the shared eight place with the half-orcs. So according to your own stated methodology they logically deserve their place, yet you want to replace them with something less popular. That you do not follow your own stated logic implies that your stance might be influenced by personal bias.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Y'know what? Thinking about it, I actually rather agree with this. It is how a lot of players view race - largely just a line on the character sheet and the source of a couple of powers. I've seen a lot of players who treat race as a flavor element and ignore it for the most part.

I would rather that didn't happen. I think the choice of your character's race should inform how you play that character just about as much as the class of that character. Certainly as much as background, bonds and whatnot should. And, yes, I know there are more than a few players out there that ignore that stuff too.

I guess that's my issue. If race is just largely flavor, then why are we seeing such a heavy weighting on certain races? Why are dragonborn so much more popular than, well, halflings? ((I'm making an example, not picking a fight)) If racial choices are just flavor, then shouldn't the choices be relatively equal then? Even if we put humans to one side, there is still a pretty heavy skewing of the played races towards certain options. Wouldn't it be better for the game if those options were fairly equally popular?

People like differnt things and some things are always more popular than some other things. I don't think this is weird at all nor it is really problem.

 

[Gnarlo]

Expanding from this, I think it would be interesting to present halflings as the forgotten heroes of the world. They've been in all the major battles, have had great heroes, but somehow keep getting ignored in the songs and legends, so everyone thinks they're lazy and decadent good-for-nothings. And maybe halflings prefer it this way, plausible deniability or something. Like how a house cat looks adorable but is actually a fierce predator.

So yeah, the hidden badasses of your DnD world, basically Clark Kent/Superman.

I know this is from way back, but I’m just getting around to this thread and I love this. Halflings are basically the “lower decks” of the fantasy world; doing all the grunt work, getting none of the credit, and when the “important” people of the world even notice them it’s to say “who are these guys? what are we keeping them around for?”

 

[Vaalingrade]

honestly, I want them to remove the halfling to see what the argument for their return would be as I am betting pure tradition not any substance, now good substance would be nice as then we would know what matters to people about them.

This entire thread has been people telling you why they like halflings.

160 pages of it. Don't pretend it didn't happen.