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

[FrozenNorth]

Old school D&D loved Brit-centric Tolkien. But also loved other things too. I wouldnt mind some old school scifi in 5e. New school D&D loves Tolkien too, but also loves other things. That is ok with me. Each generation must make the game ones own.

I’ll be honest. I wonder if the fact that halflings are so Brit-centric isn’t part of the issue of why I feel they are overplayed.

The hobby has grown and changed a lot since its beginnings as a Tolkien-clone rooted in Brit-fantasy with a couple of token mentions to other mythologies.

These days, influences from other fantasies are much more prominent, but there is still a contingent that tries to block the new, even when it is more popular than the old, because TRADITION.

 

[Minigiant]

It is pretty weird that undead can still be frightened since Turn Undead seems to go out of its way to frighten without frightening.

When one of your top 3 goals is simplicity...

 

[Cadence]

There are quite a few adventures that focus on drow, so yes, there are a ton of adventures that focus on both elves and dwarves.

So Drow and Dwarves get more adventures in part because they have evil sub-races that are used as monsters? Darn those halflings for not having a violent evil-creating schism!!!

 

[Minigiant]

I agree, the D&D Halfling is piggypacking off of the popularity of the Tolkien Hobbit.

The Halfling can still benefit from Tolkienism, even if it isnt one of the core-four lineages. If it is supposed to be Tolkien, then the lineage cannot be too well detailed for reallife legal reasons. But if the Halfling is nondescript and less developed, then that itself makes it more suitable for one of the background lineages.

That's the whole discussion.

Halflings are just Hobbits lifted wholesale from Tolkien and given a pantheon because every race has one. It melds into the game basically in no other way.

It is as if Wookies were added to D&D because Star Wars, renamed Woolies, given a god, and then shoved as important without any other entanglement with the game.


Some are fine with that.
Some are not.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Official, but not binding.

I would say official, but not RAW. I would say official because it come from the creators of the game and have given it official character, but I would say it is not RAW because it is clearly an interpretation of a rule in the PHB.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I’ll be honest. I wonder if the fact that halflings are so Brit-centric isn’t part of the issue of why I feel they are overplayed.

The hobby has grown and changed a lot since its beginnings as a Tolkien-clone rooted in Brit-fantasy with a couple of token mentions to other mythologies.

These days, influences from other fantasies are much more prominent, but there is still a contingent that tries to block the new, even when it is more popular than the old, because TRADITION.

I feel the halflings are way less tied to Britishness than dwarves are to being Nordic (with Scottish accents.)

 

[Yora]

"Sage advice is really more like guidelines than actual rules."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's the whole discussion.

Halflings are just Hobbits lifted wholesale from Tolkien and given a pantheon because every race has one. It melds into the game basically in no other way.

It is as if Wookies were added to D&D because Star Wars, renamed Woolies, given a god, and then shoved as important without any other entanglement with the game.


Some are fine with that.
Some are not.

But that's what was done with the elves, dwarves and orcs too...

Also, woolies sound cool.

 

[carkl3000]

What does that even mean?

It certainly doesn't have much meaning in an individual game (unless everyone at the table has agreed to use RAW only). If the DM of my game gave my halfling character advantage on a save against Fear Aura and then gave the gnome advantage because of his Gnome Cunning, I wouldn't say a word about it. It's not important enough to stop the game over. I probably wouldn't even bother to mention it to the DM out of game.

The only time I think it makes much of a difference (aside from a RAW-only game) is if, for instance, someone is comparing the relative value of two racial features. If someone says that "Halfling Brave isn't interesting/valuable/unique because Gnome Cunning covers all frightened conditions plus other stuff to boot," and if that doesn't comport with the way the game was designed (because by RAW there are a considerable number of frightening abilities that gnome cunning doesn't cover.) I think it's worth mentioning, and if someone wants to argue about it, might as well get it right.

Does Gnome Cunning have more value in game than Halfling Brave? I would say so. It's definitely applicable in more situations. Is Halfling Brave, as it's designed, thematic, unique, interesting, and a valuable feature? Yes, without a doubt! I also think a skillful DM who wanted to, could use that feature to play up the fact that one of the little gals (or guys) in the party has more guts than some of the big beefy dudes without breaking the game or taking away player agency, and that would be fun.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So Drow and Dwarves get more adventures in part because they have evil sub-races that are used as monsters? Darn those halflings for not having a violent evil-creating schism!!!

Even if you exclude evil elves snd evil dwarves, elves and dwarves have a much greater presence than halflings.

But to answer your question, YES! The fact that elves and dwarves are prominent in the adventures (whether as a ally or an antagonist) contributes to the impression that they are core to the setting.

And those evil-schisms not only provide lore about the subraces, but also about the main races themselves. Lolth’e lore runs straight into her fight with Corellon, and the duerger’s origins are tied with those of dwarves.