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

[jayoungr]

In any case, The Denham Tracts evidence that the word "hobbit" was already part of the English language.

A couple of rare instances in print (one 19th-century source quoting one 16th-century source) do not show that it was in anything like common usage. (It could have been a regional term, for one example.)

Whether Tolkien read the Tracts or came across the word "hobbit" elsewhere, it is unlikely Tolkien coincidentally and independently invent the word.

I think it's entirely possible, and so do many professional linguistics experts.

I think it's also possible that he may have read or skimmed the Denham source at some point, remembered the word subconsciously, and later convinced himself that he invented it. But he wouldn't think that if it was in common usage. As for coming across it elsewhere, no other printed instances have been found, so it's hard to say where that would be.

Especially, his hobbit means the same thing as the hobbit in the Tracts. It is the same word.

In the Tract, it's just a name for some undescribed supernatural creature. There is no reason to think it means "peaceful agrarian countryfolk about half the size of humans."

Maybe it was the crowd I ran with back before the pandemic, but I've never seen a Dex fighter in play that wasn't primarily an archer

I've actually never seen a DEX fighter in play who was an archer. The crowd I run with favors the "sword dancer" type more.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe it was the crowd I ran with back before the pandemic, but I've never seen a Dex fighter in play that wasn't primarily an archer (which halflings are also at a disadvantage at because they can't use longbows well). Sword and board fighters were also really rare, that was more of a paladin thing in my experience. All the fighters I've seen were going for one of the meta feats, or at least using the meta weapons (longbow, hand crossbow, halberd, or greatsword).

The issue really is the three overpowered feats that warp the builds around them. I nerfed them for my games.

 

[Yaarel]

A couple of rare instances in print (one 19th-century source quoting one 16th-century source) do not show that it was in anything like common usage. (It could have been a regional term, for one example.)


I think it's entirely possible, and so do many professional linguistics experts.

I think it's also possible that he may have read or skimmed the Denham source at some point, remembered the word subconsciously, and later convinced himself that he invented it. But he wouldn't think that if it was in common usage. As for coming across it elsewhere, no other printed instances have been found, so it's hard to say where that would be.


In the Tract, it's just a name for some undescribed supernatural creature. There is no reason to think it means "peaceful agrarian countryfolk about half the size of humans."


I've actually never seen a DEX fighter in play who was an archer. The crowd I run with favors the "sword dancer" type more.

The term "hobbit" occurs in a context of other fairytale terms that are familiar to English speakers. So it felt common enough to Denham.

Probably, the term is regional.

Because the term "hobbit" clearly relates to "hob" and "hobgoblin", it is a helpful house sprite, which is what Tolkien is also describing. The house sprite is short, while the elf is human size, which is the Scottish view, which Tolkien is also aware of.

 

[jayoungr]

The term "hobbit" occurs in a context of other fairytale terms that are familiar to English speakers. So it felt common enough to Denham.

Denham was quoting a 16th-century source. This is not evidence that all the words in his tract were ones that he was personally familiar with.

Probably, the term is regional.

And yet no folklorist in the 19th or 20th century ever ran across it, and there were lots of them out collecting material. It may have been a regional term of the 16th century which died out in the intervening time.

Because the term "hobbit" clearly relates to "hob" and "hobgoblin", it is a helpful house sprite, which is what Tolkien is also describing.

I disagree that Tolkien's hobbits are helpful house sprites. There is a certain amount of thematic overlap in that both wish to create comfort, but that is not strong enough to say they are the same.

 

[Yaarel]

I disagree that Tolkien's hobbits are helpful house sprites. There is a certain amount of thematic overlap in that both wish to create comfort, but that is not strong enough to say they are the same.

The fact that Tolkien hobbits hate to leave their home, is a house sprite thing.

 

[jayoungr]

The fact that Tolkien hobbits hate to leave their home, is a house sprite thing.

They have some points of commonality. The concepts are related in certain ways. That's not enough to say that they are entirely equivalent.

 

[Yaarel]

They have some points of commonality. The concepts are related in certain ways. That's not enough to say that they are entirely equivalent.

Except the word "hob" and "hobbit" are variants of the same word, like "boggard" and "bogey" and "boogie".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. It is a classic D&D trope, going back to Tolkien. People like playing halflings. I don't think it needs more justification than that, at least as far as the core rulebooks are concerned. To put it another way, there's more reason to keep it in there than to leave it out, and there's nothing wrong with maintaining tradition - especially when it serves what people want.

Each setting might have their own reasons or takes on halflings, but most simply go by "because it is in the core rules."

As for my setting, halflings aren't "small plump Englishmen." They're more river-faring gypsy-nomads.

Oh yeah, the toolbox thing. I don't think it is being explicitly questioned, but these conversations tend to have an underlying current that goes in that direction, especially with the usage of "we." "Do we need halflings?" Even your phrasing: "we know it is..." Who is this we? Evidently some who question the necessity of halflings in the core rules. But why is that a thing? There's really no reason to take them out - just leave them in the toolbox, and do with it what you please. Even if you're not homebrewing, you can say to your group, "I'm running the Realms as-is, but without halflings. Instead you can play X, Y, or Z for weefolk options."

Again, there is this recurring trend of people making an argument to remove tools they dont personally use from the community toolbox. Why does this keep coming up? I may need to make a new thread...

 

[jayoungr]

Except the word "hob" and "hobbit" are variants of the same word.

First of all, hob is also the word for a niche in a fireplace for keeping food warm; that is most likely the root word for all the "hob-" names for beings related to the comforts of home (or to disrupting them, in the case of hobgoblins).

And second of all, there's a difference between related and identical. I'm perfectly willing to agree that hobbits are related, in name and concept, to house sprites, but it should be self-evident that they're not identical.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

because they simply do not justify the race

Yes, they do.