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

[Cadence]

I am not saying no small folk or halflings but why are they so common in world-building other than because we are told they should be there?
we could put something better in its place and move it to say a forgotten realms book.

Why would most worlds particularly have elves or dwarves instead of warforged or tieflings except because we've always been told they should be there?

If warforged or tieflings or the flavor of the day are popular, is it mostly because they're new? If elves and dwarves are popular is it omnipresence and momentum?

Are there a lot of threads about who is unreasonable when a DM has a world conception with limited race and class options and, invariably, a player wants to add in another race or class? Is taking out halflings just going to make them the thing folks will want to add into the world that has no place for them (at least in the DMs mind)? Is having players try to justify Halflings to thwart their DM's world conception the best way to get unique takes on the race?

 

[Cadence]

Dwarves sit, squat, and don't move with the times. If a dwarf or multiple dwarves act instead of react, it's major.

Re-reading the Nero Wolfe corpus right now, and it feels like some humans can get at this too

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Building clockwork toys, firestarts, and music boxes, or having an illusion cantrip seems a slow start to being a master-tinker or master-illusionist. But even so, are those genetic or societal?

Innate magic is almost always implied to be genetic, not societal. The tinkering ability is obviously cultural, but gnomes are shown to have large heads (and therefore brains) to show that at least some of their intellect is genetic.

(Is 5e heading in a way that they would be societal?)

In the current 5e direction, I do think that Forest Gnomes would keep the magic and Gnomes would keep Gnomish Cunning, but Tinker would be cultural.

Isn't being connected to a particular God purely fluff (Halflings are connected to Yondalla and not Garl Gllittergold. Do we really want to paint entire races as antisocial, haughty, and xenophobic?!?

But fluff matters. Fluff is what this whole thread is about. How certain races are fluffed matters for how drawing their stories are. The story of Garl Glittergold and the story of Corellon are intrinsically different. Garl is a tricky prankster that prefers using traps and wit to avoid his enemies (Kurtulmak and his kobold servants), while Corellon was a warrior (cut out Gruumsh's eye). They're very different and have fairly engaging stories, IMO. (Yondalla is boring, IMO.)

And, obviously, the whole races aren't antisocial, haughty, or xenophobic, but parts of the society are. Also, I don't think antisocial is a bad trait for a race to have. I'm antisocial. We're all nerds here. I'm sure lots of us are antisocial as well. Haughtiness and xenophobia are flaws, and are almost always illustrated as such in fantasy, and that's a typical fantasy depiction of elves, dating back to the mythological origins of Elves (the Norse Alfar).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Now is not the time to make me feel old with my perfectly acceptable movie references.

I got it. I'm 19, and I've seen the Dark Crystal.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yondalla is boring, IMO.

TSR/WotC has historically done a bad job with showing the nobility of defending home and hearth, despite numerous real world examples of how it can be incredibly compelling.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Why would most worlds particularly have elves or dwarves instead of warforged or tieflings except because we've always been told they should be there?

If warforged or tieflings or the flavor of the day are popular, is it mostly because they're new? If elves and dwarves are popular is it omnipresence and momentum?

Are there a lot of threads about who is unreasonable when a DM has a world conception with limited race and class options and, invariably, a player wants to add in another race or class? Is taking out halflings just going to make them the thing folks will want to add into the world that has no place for them (at least in the DMs mind)? Is having players try to justify Halflings to thwart their DM's world conception the best way to get unique takes on the race?

you are not wrong on the first part but they at least have more to mess with to generate different interpretations.

warforged really depends on setting and tieflings without some kind of fiend presents in the setting are just cooler looking humans but being tired to hell is at least a thing that has more than two interpretations.

I like limited focused settings and if I want to bring it a race I want to be able to say how it could work and be interpreted in a setting, halflings have near nothing in that department.

I myself want to know how to build better races that can be both widely interpreted but have a core that inspires things, halflings lack both can you even imagine what a society of evil halflings would be like?

 

[Minigiant]

Re-reading the Nero Wolfe corpus right now, and it feels like some humans can get at this too

Sure. But humans don't seem to be made to resemble the elements of stone and iron. Dwarves don't just have a tendency to not move physically, mentally, and spiritually, they are actually hard to move, had to slow, and hard to drop.

Whereas Halflings kinda feel like a culture turned into a race. Which is kinda what Tolkien did. And now with an edition with themes, Halflings feel more like a background than a race. Like you could be a human, take the Halfling background, and take the rogue class. Prioritize Dexterity, Charisma, and Wisdom.

 

[Cadence]

Innate magic is almost always implied to be genetic, not societal. The tinkering ability is obviously cultural, but gnomes are shown to have large heads (and therefore brains) to show that at least some of their intellect is genetic.

I'm pretty sure using head size as a sign of intellect of humanoids, and having some humanoids be more intelligent based on appearance, is certainly not in line with the way things are going. (We can't tell if you're evil by your appearance, but we can tell you aren't very smart?).

IMO. (Yondalla is boring, IMO.)

Sounds like you're pretty solidly anti-Halflingist. Even going after their religion!?!? ;-)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Sure. But humans don't seem to be made to resemble the elements of stone and iron. Dwarves don't just have a tendency to not move physically, mentally, and spiritually, they are actually hard to move, had to slow, and hard to drop.

Almost all of that has no mechanical basis in the game. It's fluff, just like the fluff around halflings. You can take a human, give them the appropriate background (Miner feels like it ought to be a background, generally speaking), prioritize Constitution, Strength and Wisdom.

"Proving" that halflings don't have enough substance to merit inclusion in the PHB means "proving" that's true of almost all the races, except for the most non-traditional of player character races who have supernatural abilities other than darkvision (because honestly, everyone but halflings and humans have darkvision, so it's almost not even worth considering -- it's not unusual or special any more).

This is not a "provable" argument. If people don't think halflings belong in their games, they don't. If people think halflings belong in their games, they do. It's a matter or taste and given that the PHB race list is a toolkit, not a list of mandatory features for D&D, everyone can be right at their own table.

 

[edemaitre]

There are a couple of ways to approach Halflings in a D&D game.

-They replace Half-Elves and Half-Dwarves (the other half being human). The Lightfoot combine the rustic nature of some humans with the nimbleness and fey appreciation for nature of the Elves, while the Stout combine Dwarven solidity with human curiosity.

-They replace/merge with Gnomes. Traditionally, Gnomes are more about craft while Halflings are more about agriculture, but your world could have the same race/subspecies occupying both niches. Or they could be offshoots of the same race.

-They're the good-aligned mirror of Kobolds. If cruel Orcs are twisted Elves, martial Hobgoblins are monstrous humans, and tunnel-dwelling Goblins the rivals of Dwarves, perhaps the small and mischievous Kobolds have their equivalent in the more sedentary Halflings. This might not jibe with the current thinking of not making entire races evil, but if their creator gods or rulers are, and their function is to provide slayable opponents, they should at least fit into some sort of cosmology and ecosystem.

-They're a subrace of humanity. It always bugged me that the official, "kitchen sink" settings felt that every Player Character option had to have a culture and homeland, leading to some very crowded worlds. Sure, some cities might be cosmopolitan, but perhaps the different "races" are just that -- people with slightly different physical and cultural characteristics that developed in relative isolation.

-They're not magical. Sure, humans aren't either, but some have a talent for spellcasting. Perhaps Halflings were created by some deity to resist magic (like Dwarves, but less craft-oriented). I could see them making decent Druids with some magical resistance. I agree with the posters who noted that Halflings are meant to be the simple, cheerful counterpoint to the powerful and dark aspects of other characters.

-They're stand-ins for medieval English peasants. As others on this thread have noted, if you have analogues for different historical cultures in your world, you can simply assign them one. For example, the High Elves are Celtic aristocrats, the Dwarves are Slavic nomads, and Gnomes Germanic guildspeople. You can also give your humans different cultural overlays and mix and match.

Each campaign is a mix of the sources the D.M. chooses and the options the role-players like. Your world doesn't have to have Halflings, but Warrows, Brownies, Hobbits, and Podlings are a popular fantasy trope.