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

[Chaosmancer]

To assume something in a non-hypothetical context, and it was not presented by you as hypothetical, means to move forward as if that thing were definitely the case. To posit something means to suggest that it could be the case/is a plausible idea.

Okay, I think I get the confusion here. Yes, assuming means that you "go forward as if it were true" but that by definition means that you don't know if it is true. But, you rarely assume something that is completely implausible, you can, but it is usually pretty clearly stated as being implausible and a hypothetical.

To even posit something you have to put forth that it could be true, which mean that you have to proceed with the idea as though it were true. I have heard it used in the same manner as "assume" such as "Let us posit a world where-" statements.

So, you are drawing a hard line, where I have typically seen and drawn a soft line.

2 things.

First; I didn’t say they avoid disasters. I said they avoid becoming the focus of realms shaking events, wars, etc.

Right, but many of those "realm shaking events" are disasters. The endless winter of Rime of the Frost Maiden. The Giant attacks because of a Divine Decree (remember, many natural disasters were assumed to be because of the gods being angered. Amon's children causing a ruckus because they angered him is 100% in that vein). The summoning of Demon Lords into the world, or the plunging of an entire city into the Hells.

This is my point. Many adventures require and start with a disaster, so how do you avoid becoming the focus of a disaster? Which to the answer you gave...

Second…bro they’re literally lucky. Their percentage chance to fail is reduced by 5% just from taking the 1 on the d20 effectively off the table, and their chances of success are increased by having a second roll 1/20 times they try to do anything, have to make a save, etc.

So…yeah, it’s likely that they’ve had fewer major plagues, misstepped into fewer armed conflicts, failed less to talk their way out of conflicts, been in the path of destruction less, etc.

It’s completely in keeping with their lore and mechanics.

This is why I hate the halfling Luck in the lore.

Why were no halflings seriously involved in Acerak's plan? Because they are Lucky.
Why were no halfling villages targets of rampaging giants? Because they are Lucky.
Why has no army ever marched through their lands? Because they are Lucky.

Was the limited number of halflings living in Icewind Dale because of their luck? Has no one ever performed a ritual of evil magic near a halfling village because of their luck?

And it frankly gets absurd quickly if you allow it to spiral out. Because of Halfling luck they are never in the area of a major disaster. Then do we assume that the disaster being resolved before it reaches halfling lands is also because of their luck? Is Baldur's Gate a massively successful trading hub, drawing all of these evils and events and disasters because halfling luck makes it so Baldur's Gate gets hit with them and resolves the problem before it can harm halflings?

This is all just narrative annoyance, but much like Time Travel I find overreliance on "the Power of Luck" to spiral out into the ridiculous pretty quickly, and if you want to say that nothing bad ever happens to halflings because they are lucky... then that power has to be manipulating the gods themselves to guide the world in a way to protect halflings. It is just too much.

 

[Bardic Dave]

Lizardfolk are not indistinguishable from Dragonborn. They are a primarily swamp dwelling race and adapted to being highly amphibious. They are also highly skilled crafters. Put a lizardfolk adult on a desert island and withing a day they are likely wearing armor and wielding a weapon.

While I hate their origin myth, their one patron deity being hermaphroditic and focused solely on survival while the other one literally becoming the race is an interesting bit of lore to explore. Lizardfolk lore also deeply involves a conflict between the deity and a demon lord.

Meanwhile, the Dragonborn have the potential issue of being split between two gods, Tiamat and Bahamut, which can cause some interesting conflicts, though it isn't explored. Their breath weapon and much more martial set up makes them seem like a more Roman style of culture.

So, actually, if it wasn't for the inherent value of dragon lore being tied to the dragonborn, the Lizardfolk would be a far superior option based off lore.

Origin stories? Please! Are you saying that I can’t play a dwarf split between two gods? Or an amphibious elf with a hermaphroditic god? All of that is just religious fluff that any character of any race could write into their backstory. Sorry mate, not good enough!

Face it, Lizardfolk are chumps, Dragonborn are rad. I’ve got hard evidence on my side and you’re grasping at straws. The facts don’t lie.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I just want to say, I don't understand why halflings need to be as integrated into a setting (or its history) as say elves, dwarves, or humans. Meaning, I'm perfectly ok with halflings just being around, not really having large nations or their culture having a huge impact on a world's history.

I mean, the most famous halflings are really the hobbits of the Lord of the Rings... and the biggest community of hobbits is the Shire, which has essentially no role in the great wars against Morgoth or Sauron... they never dominate the world in brilliant cities like the Elves, or even build vast citadel strongholds like the dwarves (the fall of one to Smaug being the plot of the Hobbit).

Instead, hobbit individuals have an impact on history. I think there is a certain appeal to play a hobbit (or halfling) in a D&D campaign. You're part of a race known for being unexceptional... your race have not created great nations or cities, waged wars or conquered countries. You're supposed to be underestimated, and I think a good amount of player's like playing an underdog that beats those expectations.

Now, dragonborn? Yeah, the cool dragon-people probably should have a bigger impact on the world.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because of Halfling luck they are never in the area of a major disaster.

You’re conflating disparate elements. They try to avoid being the focus of major events, and are lucky enough to mostly succeed.

But they are affected by them. Ten Towns has a significant Halfling population and several named NPCs.

 

[Don Durito]

Halflings' get luck because it fits the idea of a plucky small hero that the rules want to convey. It's not intended to say anything about their race or culture in general (it's not really clear to me that their luck is something that even objectively exists within the game world any more than metacurrencies are in any other game.)

It doesn't mean that all halflings are lucky. It mean's that the halfling PC in the party is lucky.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I don't care for some very specific aspects of my car, yet I still purchased it and think it's a great vehicle for me and would happily by another one if it were wrecked somehow. How the **** is every aspect of the entire book supposed to appeal to 100% of the target audience? A lot of people think halflings work just fine, a few don't.

But the same token, if the new model of a car had a small change, many people might either appreciate the change or not care, even among those that used the feature.

 

[Oofta]

But the same token, if the new model of a car had a small change, many people might either appreciate the change or not care, even among those that used the feature.

My point was that virtually all complex products we purchase have some inherent compromise. So having some small aspect that you can easily ignore is not going to stop people from purchasing.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, I want to change them from farmers who try and avoid notice and never get involved, but who are warm and friendly to everyone, to be traveling bards, diplomats and storytellers actively working to unite people and prevent the forces of light from allowing concerns over wealth and territory from fracturing them and allowing evil to reign.

I want to take them from passive "we are nice" to actively advocating and helping relieve tensions in the world.

And, no, it wouldn't be every single halfling who is doing this. There would still be cobblers, innkeepers, and farmers, but I want them to have an active role in trying to do something about the state of the world.

Edit: And you have no idea what "most people want" you are reacting based on what you want. The fact that you can't accept that...

Every race reflects some fairly narrow aspect of humanity as the default. You want to make halflings "Important" and think they should have an "Impact" on the world.

For me? One of the reasons I like halflings is because they represent the overlooked, the quiet ones who don't want to be noticed. But when the time comes? When heroes are needed? That's when the "regular Joe that nobody even notices" has a chance to shine. Give them kingdoms or important roles in society at large and you lose that, you lose the essence of what it means to be a halfling. No halflings are not the jocks, the school presidents, the popular person. They're not even the technical guru or the emo kid that some people think ooze personality. That's why I like them.

P.S. As far as the majority, I'm going by the number of posters that I see that don't have an issue with it, the fact that despite there being dozens of races to play they're still relatively popular, the fact that the people I actually interact with around the gaming table have no problems with them.

 

[Cadence]

So Humans and goblins are highly similiar in more than just the way of "I think" and "I have a head and two arms and two legs"

I mean, I think they are actually quite different. As are ogres which think, have a head, two arms and two legs, and forward facing eyes. Also, they are giants, not humanoid. Oh and mindflayers which think, have a head, two arms, two legs, forward facing eyes, and are corporeal. They are also not humanoid, they are abberations.

So, again, the way you went about "proving" that everything humanoid is "basically human" addresses none of the points I have ever brought up, and is very much like Plato's definition of a man. If it can also be a plucked chicken, it isn't a terribly great definition.

Yes, if you reduce things enough, lots of things look the same. The degree which you have to reduce them is why we can say that some races aren't "basically human" and some are.

Did the 1e & B/X era make this easier to deal with in some respects (the ones that ignore the parallels to eugenics and groups of real life humans :-/ ).

We had demi-humans and goblinoids being separate and presumably kobolds were separate, etc. We were told gnomes were the cousins of dwarves, that halflings were human like, that orcs and humans bred, that elves and humans bred, and in Dragon at least that ogres could breed with orcs (? and humans?). Wouldn't surprise me if we could find quotes that ogres bred right up the chain to giants.

You could start to build some phylogenetic tree type things (even if they arose from divine creation instead of evolution in a particular world). Go with the fact that there are a variety of different species irl that make fertile hybrids with other species and then we don't need elves and orcs and humans to all be the same species.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Halflings' get luck because it fits the idea of a plucky small hero that the rules want to convey. It's not intended to say anything about their race or culture in general (it's not really clear to me that their luck is something that even objectively exists within the game world any more than metacurrencies are in any other game.)

It doesn't mean that all halflings are lucky. It mean's that the halfling PC in the party is lucky.

I disagree.