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

[Yaarel]

Having them simply be human feels like it wouldn't allow the current halfling concept because I can't see WotC (or any big publisher anymore) doing sub-races of humans with physical characteristics and social descriptions. Would the "house sprite" you're picturing have a sub-race that would match to the current or previous edition halflings? If it didn't, then it isn't a halfling, is it? It would be a new thing with an old name. (Trying to go with your idea though elemental->genasi, angel->aasimar, devil->tiefling, house sprite-> ?).

I dont disagree. Making the Halfling a Human ethnicity would make it feel unambiguously Human.

If the Gnome and Halfling merge, I think one can make the Halfling ethnicity feel similar to the current Halfling. The difference would be, the Gnome and Halfling would share traits in common, and this commonality would help the Halfling feel less Human. For example, the antimagic traits of the Gnome can make sense for the Halfling too, and echo the Tolkien Hobbit resisting the magical influence of the ring.

 

[Oofta]

House sprites are independent. For example, if they get offended, they can leave a house and move on to a new house. The abandoned house suffers from the loss of luck.

But they then find another house. Having their lore centered on servitude ... just no

 

[Yaarel]

But they then find another house. Having their lore centered on servitude ... just no

D&D can emphasize that the sprites are the house owners.

Perhaps during a long rest, the Halfling can establish boundary markers, using existing walls, or placing stones and string. Everyone who rests within the Halflings space can benefit from the Halflings luck.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

They are telling me that I must be able to show bravery.

Who is telling you that?

Like being in an adventuring party full of people who are less susceptible to fear? Unless I'm throwing magical fear around all the time, then the halflings resistance isn't really coming up. And, if they and the elven fighter succeed... is it because the halfling was particularly brave? Are the characters who didn't resist the magical fear less brave?

It is a hard thing to show.

But it isn't. At all. It's very easy to show. Because every time the halfling player rolls with advantage, everyone at the table knows it. That's it. You don't need to do any more.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I feel like 'write a whole other monster' isn't really a solution, it's just a new monster while stealing the name of something people already like.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I wish people had the same restraint about Dwarves and mining and Elves and woodsy stuff.

that would be an improvement, I always saw elves as arcane more than woods.

In my view, delete Half Elf and Half Orc, but let Tashas custom lineages handle any hybrid lineage.

I get it that Half Elf is popular so maybe it should remain as an example of how to use custom lineage.

The Half Orc should simply be an Orc. But allow custom lineage to mix and match traits for hybrids.

it is popular because it is super strong pure powergamer reasons, cut those and it drops down quickly.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Here we disagree. Even for a RPG that does deal with the tropes and themes of LotR, I think Hobbits are superfluous as a player race. In a RPG, there are different ways whereby the everyday participants enter into the fantastic world.

Just because there are different ways doesn't mean that having more than one way isn't a good thing.

One thing that humans aren't but halflings are is visibly overmatched - and unlike gnomes there's no expectation of magical might. When I see a human everyman character I often have expectations of either John McClane in the original Die Hard, or Jack Burton in Big Trouble in Little China if they aren't ultimately that competent. Halfling everyman characters don't have anything like such cultural expectations. Also unlike most other D&D versions of this a halfling is always going to be a halfling.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You: they should be diplomats.
My answer: In my campaign the Renai (nomadic trader halflings) do this to a limited extent by spreading news of he world and delivering letters and messages. But true diplomats are very political and requires a lot of force of personality, something halflings are not known for. Being likeable doesn't really make you a diplomat.

I don't know why your campaign matters for changing them in the PHB for the future.

"Political" is an odd term. Not in that you are using it, but because of how it works in practice. The guy who says "both sides have good points here, and we must try and find where everyone can at least agree" is being political. Politics is a game of compromise, and I think Halflings could fill that role quite well. I'm picturing the old Grandmother with her cup of tea, making sure that the two young people sitting at the table stay civil and communicate properly.

And, I don't think it would require much of a shift to make halflings have more force of personality. After all, this idea of being likable and building bridges between people is the entire reason for the "diplomat" flavor of Half-Elves, so there is good precedence for that direction.

You: they should be lore keepers.
My answer: that's quite out of left field. I don't see them caring about libraries of knowledge, nor is there any connection to their roots or lore.

I'd take it as an expansion of their love for stories. In older times stories, epic poems, plays and songs were the primary method of saving knowledge. And halflings already love stories, I'd just expand and formalize it. Maybe they are the Bard race, traveling around, making friends, swapping tales, that feels like something a halfling could easily do and still be a halfling, and with just a bit of a push to have them purposefully collecting information and traditions of remembering and writing, it could fit in rather well I think.

It just currently is not how they are presented.

You: Better origin story.
My answer: I've never met anyone that really cared about the origin story of a race. Is there even an origin story for humans? Or races other than dwarf and elf? I also think this should be setting specific. I mean mine would probably start with Ginnungagap for example, I doubt many others would.

sigh, as I have said over a dozen times, humans are the exception. Because saying "this is the truth of human origins" has some sticky implications. And yes, there are a lot of races with origin stories. Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Firbolg and Goliath (tied into giant lore), lizardfolk. Some of them are more vague or could be seen as setting specific, some of them are about massive changes into their current selves, like the Kenku, Nagpa, and Yuan-Ti, but most races have an origin of some sort. And it is weird that halflings don't.

You: characterize a question as an accusation
My answer: if you want to twist a question into something it's not I can't help you.

When you ask a question that has been answered already, multiple times, how else am I supposed to take it? Honestly. I had said multiple times before that post that those attributes were not what I was asking for, and then you came in and asked what could we possibly want? These attributes? The ones I had specifically already answered and said I did not want?

The only two conclusions I could come to was that you had not read my posts enough to understand my position, or you were once more accusing me of the same thing that a bunch of other posters had accused me of. And those were accusatory questions. You could have simply asked "what would it take for halflings to be interesting?" and that wouldn't have been an accusation, but following it up like so "What would it take for halflings to be interesting? Them to be bloodthirsty savages?" is an accusation.

You: halflings don't "connect"
My answer: I don't even know what this means. Every race is just some extreme of humanity with minor set dressing. Elves are back-to-nature hippies (sort of), dwarves are nose-to-the-grindstone work hard play hard types and so on. I explained how they fit in to my world just fine. This is where it's confusing, you don't want them to be overly aggressive or political, but for better or worse that's largely what history records as being important.

You are conflating "extreme form of humanity" with what I said, and that's not the way I mean this. You are also talking about what history records, but we certainly recorded more than politics and war.

What I mean is pretty simple. The way a halfling shire is presented, they seem like an idyllic demi-plane floating in some out of phase place only marginally connected to the world around them. Putting a halfling shire within 10 miles of a human or elf or dwarf border means nothing. That Shire could be anywhere, but as presented from the books and people's arguments, it would be the exact same, and it changes nothing about the world around it by being placed there

We've actually got some posters who are saying that the entire point of Halflings is that they don't matter. But, that is the problem. A halfling shire doesn't affect the world around it in any noticeable way. It doesn't provide anything beyond being a pastoral farmland full of people living at ease and enjoying their daily life. And there is nothing wrong with a village like that, full of common people living their lives... but that is EVERY halfling shire. Dwarves, Elves and humans have those villages and areas too of people living their ordinary lives, but they also have more. Halflings don't have anything more, and presenting them as they are meant to be presented makes them seem like they aren't even aware of the outside world and makes them feel disconnected.

You: halflings are just short people, children that ignore the world
My answer: many of the races live in small communities that have little to do with the outside world. For example firbolgs also ignore the outside world and just want to live in their forest homes. It's also well documented that people find short people less convincing and less attractive, I think this is a common prejudice people have whether conscious or not.

I don't care about your well-documented prejudice. That isn't the point. The trait "short" isn't enough for a race. Goblins, Kobolds, and Gnomes all have a lot more going for them, and are also short races. I know you think the majority of us are against short people, but that doesn't hold water in this case. I'm fine with all of the other short races. I'm just saying being short isn't enough.

And, there is a massive difference between Firbolg and Halflings. The PHB tells us that halflings are protected by humans. Firbolg protect themselves. They don't want to go out and interact with people beyond their forest, but they do keep an eye on those settlements, and if someone makes a move on them, they will react themselves. And yes, I know the inevitable comeback that halflings fight in defense of their homes... if they have to. But, the PHB states it clear as day on page 27 regarding the relationship between halflings and humans "And by protecting their own lands, they [humans] protect us as well."

There is this undercurrent with halfling lore and presentation that they need protection from other races. Something that isn't the case with any other race in the game.

You: lucky doesn't show up
My answer: First, it's not up to the DM to dictate how a PC acts. Second, lucky is easy. A 1 that becomes a hit means you were aiming for the right knee of a foe and totally whiff only to land a solid hit on the left inner thigh and so on. Personally I leave it up to the player to describe if they want.

So, you basically are saying to ignore one of their most iconic racial themes. Because, again, you keep offering a solution to the wrong part of the problem. And yet still seem to think that this is a personal issue with me. At least, if I go by your last post on the matter.

Because no one seems to have an answer to show how a halfling is lucky if they don't roll a 1.

You: brave doesn't show up
Halflings are significantly less likely to be affected by anything that frightens, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. I think it's mostly up to the player though. I describe the difference between bravery and courage as the following. Bravery is doing what needs to be done because you have no fear, courage is doing what needs to be done despite your fear.

I know what bravery and courage are. Again, that isn't the issue. I understand what the words mean. But again, you solution is that I have to ignore it and hope the player can figure something out. And yet again, you seemed flabbergasted that I can't think of a good way to portray it in the game. I would think that "just make the player do it for you" is clearly a bad answer.

You: I don't like their traits
My answer: that's the core of their identity, the aspect of humanity that they represent. Every race represents some aspect of humanity, are dwarves bad because some people are gruff and hard working? It's not wrong to not like it, but it's just an opinion. One a lot of people don't share.

In conclusion? All I can say is that you can't please everyone. I have no clue how you would change halflings other than the diplomat and lore keeper thing. I personally don't see that making sense as a base for the race.

Why don't you see that as making sense for a base race?

 

[Chaosmancer]

No. I dunno about others. Personally, I just think it's silly to suggest that halfling get errata'ed out of the Players Handbook. Dunno if it was you who wanted that. But others here suggested it. Like they want to ruin the fun for others.

Opinions are fine. They can get silly when they cross over and become requests or demands for official rules changes...like we are anything close to the average customer anyways. Opinions also get silly when ppl can't get the fact they might disagree.

I see this on this forum quite often. Some think they "own" the game. Being able to homebrew their own campaign isn't enough and they need validation that their view is the correct one over others and then the back and forth starts.

I did not suggest that. I have repeatedly said that the only reason I could imagine for errataing them out of the PHB is if they remain static and unchanging. I'd much rather do some small scale changes to bring them more in-line with Dungeons and dragons and make them fell like an actual part of the world rather than an after-thought.

And, I disagree. I don't think I "own" DnD, but I do have a stake in arguing that DnD goes in a direction. And you can find that silly, but if that is the case, then why participate in a discussion only to tell someone that the entire point of the discussion is silly and they shouldn't even be having it?

 

[Chaosmancer]

The issue I have is that you have appointed yourself as the person who, if you had the ability, would make changes that affect everyone else, because you seem to think you know better. This is a very individualistic game, where separate groups can do what they want, and it doesn't affect any other table. If you don't like something, change it for yourself and for others you game with (if they're ok with it). There are all sorts of things in 5e (like, really quite a few) that I wish were different. I've made many posts about things in the book I don't like. If I can get my players on board, I can make those changes, and they will affect my game. Others might like things as they are, and my changes would be unwelcome. That's fine, because what I want doesn't affect them. If you got what you want, it would. That's the difference. You want to change the book for everyone, because you think you know better.

If you want to change the game for everyone, go work for WotC, or make and publish your own version that handles halflings the way you want (non-existently, I suspect). If you do want to provide your own lore to others because you think its better, create your own version and publish it, or offer it for free as fan content. IMHO, going on about how the books should be changed to what you want seems arrogant.

Yes, if I was grand poobah of Wizards of the Coast and had ultimate authority to shape DnD... I would shape DnD. So would literally everyone else.

And, as a very individualistic game, where seperate groups can do what they want, everyone who didn't like it could tell me to shove it and go around as if I did nothing.

And, you suspect correctly. If I was making my own setting and didn't have to conform to the expectations of DnD, I would get rid of halflings. I actually, if I was a good enough designer, would add some things that I think would be really cool, like a race of plant people. I've got a few fantasy worlds where I have worked on that concept, and I think they provide an interesting culture in some cases. Enough to sell? Probably not. But mechanics is incredibly hard for some of the things I'm really interested in doing. And, I don't have the time or talent to make them into a game and sell that game. I'd do much better focusing on my writing.

But, none of that means I can't advocate for changes in the game. This idea that DnD can only ever be changed at a table by table level, and any attempt to change it on a larger scale is somehow wrong baffles me. DnD does change on a grand scale sometimes. IT doesn't just have to be every individual DM carving out their own way to play. We can ask WoTC to change what they put in their books. It isn't bad to do so.