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

[Chaosmancer]

I’m not going to keep litigating this. Several other people understood what they were saying, but it is what it is.

Their words stated that if you don’t see the value in a race that is just those traits, nothing more complex or grand or dark or world-shaking, it comes across as not valuing those traits.

Okay. They are wrong. I do value those traits. I've said it repeatedly. I just don't value halflings.

As they should be.

Why?

Yes.

Why?

No.

Why not?

A race isn’t a character. Besides, people have already pointed out some easy flaws you can play with you want that.

And so I didn't have a flawed premise. And my point was never that I can't think of any flaws, but that they are commonly presented without flaws. Which no one has really been able to counter, because they just kept showing their homebrew.

For you, perhaps. Not for people who enjoy halflings as they are. And you can just use gnomes. No one is being deprived of anything, here.

Never said they were.

My point, again, because I know things can get lost in these novels we are writing back and forth, is that that place is good. It is good that a “core” race (insofar as that concept even matters) is just folks.

But the issue isn't that they are just folk. The issue is that they have no origin story. They have no role. You can enjoy the fact that they are just folk, and you can make them interesting folk, that have some story beyond "they are kind farmers".

You could have them be just normal kind folk and have them be far more interesting and have more lore and culture and things to base adventure hooks off of than what they currently have.

Here’s my question, then.

If Brandobaris (my favorite halfling god) and Yondalla and all the other FR hin deities had a solid writeup in 5e, with things like what kind of PCs might represent different priests and knights and other servants of their gods, and the River halflings of 4e (who are mentioned in the 5e PHB) had a little more prominence, and there were some notes in some subclasses about how this or that tradition started with halflings, would that be enough?

Because if not, I think maybe this really is just a case of you not liking halflings and trying to spin it into something bigger than that.

But regardless, it remains a good thing that a core race is just folks.

Yes, that would be awesome. I think the river halflings offer a good position to work from, I think if the gods and there servants were better represented it would help a lot. If they were connected to different class structures that would be amazing, and actually show this "halflings are bold adventurers" in a really solid way.

All of that would be great. They have none of that right now.

Large changes, sure. I don’t support changing the character and basic premise of stuff between editions unless it’s obscure like Firbolgs.

But adding lore would be fine. As long as it doesn’t involve changing them into something completely different. Halflings don’t need innate magic, or a dark history of violent colonialism, or whatever.

The gnome writeup in Mordy’s is great, for instance. One of the only lore sections I don’t dislike in that book. I wish that halflings had gotten as fun and interesting a writeup.

Just more info on their gods, reminders of halfling heroes, notes of halfling traditions that can be viewed as PC builds, etc.

And more info about the River halflings, and how they tie the trade relations of various realms together, as well as being a welcome source of information as they go from town to town.

I agree. That would be fine. My issue is that they lack so much, not that I want to make them dark and gritty or give them a ton of magical flavor.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What's the evidence that gnomes, in particular, are more popular than halflings? (I don't recall seeing evidence for goblins either, but I'd find that easier to believe for a variety of reasons.)

I've seen them a lot more. In games, novels, webcomics, art, tv shows. I see far far more gnomes than halflings, but a decent margin. The only exception is Tolkien and things based more heavily DnD.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I suggest you start a thread then and ask for people suggestions about better lore for halflings.

Why so I can get swarmed with people telling me how halfling lore is fine how it is and I must hate humble heroes if I don't understand the appeal of halflings as written? I didn't even start this thread. I just pointed out the lack of mythological halfling lore, and their lack of culture. Then pointed out that it is wrong to accuse people of not liking humble heroes for not liking halflings.

And that has driven the last five pages absolutely crazy with all these different personal takes and accusations.

 

[Yaarel]

Heh, I get the impression that @doctorbadwolf is somewhat worried that D&D might get rid of the Halfling.

4e is a lesson. 4e originally planned to eliminate the Gnome, in the name of a design goal to consolidate everything down to the most salient options. So for the "small" PC, the Halfling stayed and the Gnome got demoted to monster statblock. A number of players noted the designers got rid of the wrong one. There was an outcry from Gnome-lovers. While they were a small percentage of D&D players, there was also an outcry from the friends of Gnome-lovers, and together they were a sizable percentage of the D&D players. Heh, I remember the designers referring to "The Gnome Effect".

There is zero chance that D&D would eliminate the Halfling.

But.

I hope, designers make the Halfling more clearly nonhuman. (It is almost problematic that short people are assumed to be a separate species from average size people.)

And I hope, future designers will focus more on exactly which lineages are appropriate for a particular setting and which lineages are not.

 

[Hussar]

OK, guys, how about this:

I think we can all agree that halflings don't have a huge amount of canonical culture. In both 2e "Complete Book" series and 5e's Mordie's Foes, they shared time with gnomes. They, unlike every other PC race, don't have a racial foe (which isn't a bad thing, at least for those of us who dislike the idea of Always Evil races), and don't have an origin myth (IIRC, Yondalla didn't create halflings; she found them and claimed them. I could be wrong, though).

Sooo.... how's about instead of complaining about whether or not they have a purpose, y'all take what you know about them and add stuff until they become as interesting as other races.

I would argue that the counter point to this is the fact that we've had nearly FIFTY YEARS to make halflings cool and interesting.

And they still aren't. They're basically the "tacked on" race in nearly every setting. Greyhawk barely mentions them, and, AFAIK, halflings don't even have anything like a nation state in that setting. Forgotten Realms has largely forgotten halflings as well. They barely get mentioned in any setting book and almost always as an "and also". Sure, you have cannibal halflings in Dark Sun, but, this is a setting that is pretty far out there. Dino riding halflings kinda makes them interesting in Eberron, but, again, that's so far removed from the PHB halfling, that you could have renamed them as anything other than a halfling and no one would notice.

How about, after fifty years of failing to make any inroads into making halflings interesting (4e's core attempt was shot down in flames as not really being halflings, if you want to see what happens if you actually TRY to change halflings in the game), we give it up as a bad job, dump them into the Monster Manual (so those who want to play halflings still can) and make room for a race that people actually want to play.

 

[Don Durito]

Why so I can get swarmed with people telling me how halfling lore is fine how it is and I must hate humble heroes if I don't understand the appeal of halflings as written? I didn't even start this thread. I just pointed out the lack of mythological halfling lore, and their lack of culture. Then pointed out that it is wrong to accuse people of not liking humble heroes for not liking halflings.

And that has driven the last five pages absolutely crazy with all these different personal takes and accusations.

I think if you start a thread dedicated to alternative takes on halfling lore and not complaining about how much the current take sucks you will get positive responses.

Assuming that’s what you want?

 

[jayoungr]

I've seen them a lot more. In games, novels, webcomics, art, tv shows. I see far far more gnomes than halflings, but a decent margin. The only exception is Tolkien and things based more heavily DnD.

I'm skeptical that they're actually more common, but I'll accept that this is your anecdotal impression.

I hope, designers make the Halfling more clearly nonhuman.

You mean ... like giving them enormous, hairy feet?

 

[Yaarel]

I'm skeptical that they're actually more common, but I'll accept that this is your anecdotal impression.


You mean ... like giving them enormous, hairy feet?

Some humans have big hairy feet.

I mean, give the nonhuman lineage, called Halfling, a trait that is clearly not human.

 

[jayoungr]

Some humans have big hairy feet.

Not that big, proportional to their bodies (i.e., not in original hobbit/halfling-sized ratio).

 

[Hussar]

What's the evidence that gnomes, in particular, are more popular than halflings? (I don't recall seeing evidence for goblins either, but I'd find that easier to believe for a variety of reasons.)

Well, it's a bit out of date, but the D&D Beyond statistics from 2017 peg halflings, goliaths, gnomes, genasi, half-orcs and aarocockra at virtually the same numbers. At least, all within tolerances.

So, yeah, if you swapped out halflings with, say, aarocockra (who have a TON more flavor built in) or genasi (again, mountain of flavor and far more distinct than halflings), you'd probably be doing something.

I mean, it says a lot when core races cannot compete with non-core races. Fifty years of gaming history, and halflings can't even compete with dragonborn.