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

[Neonchameleon]

Halflings do not have good lore in Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. You propose they don't exist in Dragonlance, and they are radically altered for Darksun and Eberron. So, 2/5 of the settings. In 2e they had to share a Complete book. In 3.5 they were second string in the Races of the Wilds. They are still in the Basic rules as one of the Cour Four races, and in the PHB as a common race to reflect this.

First the Eberron halflings you are most likely to meet in most campaigns are from the Dragonmarked houses; Gallanda and Jorasco - with the mark of healing and the mark of hospitality respectively. Halflings living in larger communities and known for their hospitality? That's about as close to vanilla PHB halflings as you can get. Further away are the Tallenta Plains with its dinosaur riding halfling nomads because no race is a monoculture and different people in different environments. But the default adventurer zone is Sharn, population measured in hundreds of thousands, with humans as the most common race with a third of the city's population - and halflings as third most common with a tenth and being approximately PHB-standard halflings. The Talenta Plains are on literally the far side of the continent, multiple hostile countries away and you literally have to cross the post-apocalyptic wasteland that is The Mournland to get there. So no, Eberron halflings aren't "radically altered" other than that there are multiple halfling cultures.

And this is the problem we are pointing out. You seem to have taken the stance that "the PHB is fine, because the PHB lore is supposed to be the weakest part" which... is true? I can agree with that much at least, but in my opinion you can't just change the lore outside of the PHB to address this, you need to hook those changes in the PHB, so that the other sources can expand on them.

No. I've taken the attitude that the PHB is fine and Eberron is fine (as for that matter is Dark Sun; PHB standard halflings would not work in such a divergent setting). And that the halfling archetype is fine. Oh, and the Nentir Vale halflings are also fine with multiple organisations and being PHB standard (the Nentir Vale being the 4e setting). And halflings fit pretty well into Ravenloft (there are few in Barovia but 98% of Barovia is human; this isn't something to do with halflings).

The problem is more to do with the Forgotten Realms and the Realms being the default setting than it is anything else. Halflings aren't weak in the PHB - but the Realms are the default setting.

And it makes no sense at all to remove halflings from the PHB because the Realms doesn't do right by them. It also doesn't make sense to tailor halflings specifically to people who are passionate in their dislike of halflings.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why on earth do you think the halflings are fighting 1 on 1? We've got an entire village of community minded farmers against a single raiding party. Especially at range quantity has a quality all of its own.

I'm not thinking it is 1v1, but the numbers show the issue.

If 1v1 is 7 hits to 1 hit, then to defeat a single gnoll and lose only a single halfling you would need 7 halflings. At 10 gnolls 7 halflings lose. To defeat 10 gnolls in a single exchange (assuming attacks can be exchanged) you would need 70 halflings. Because Gnolls kill a single halfling every round, while halflings kill 1/7 of a gnoll per halfling.

Yes, Quantity has a quality, but you have a limited Quantity of bodies. I know people will start talking about tactics, and moving around so that the Gnolls are just helplessly chasing halflings and have no chance to attack any of them, while the halflings constantly pelt them every round, but the issue with the Slings is that they put the halflings in the least advantageous position in terms of range. Easily in range of the Gnoll counterattacks.

And, if you have even a few Gnoll Hunters and/or Gnawers, this gets even worse because they have bows and increased movement speed respectively. You can't rely on intelligent enemies to stupidly rush into melee and never use tools that can give them the advantage.

Also if we go by default monster manual statblocks and the way the +1 bonuses from PC races almost always become the favoured stat from the MM statblock it will be 1d4+2 - or 4.5 damage on average - for five stones on average. Working against the gnolls AC 15 the stones have a 1 in 2 chance of hitting - or 1 in 4 with disadvantage (remember that gnolls like this don't use longbows as they are using shields). Which means that each halfling has enough ammo in a normal sling pouch to take down a gnoll if they can kite far enough - and hand off who's double moving and who's retreating and shooting long enough to pick off the lead gnolls.

The move from PHB to the commoner statblocks in the MM is still getting them a 12. You may be looking at the Drow to the Drow statblock (the only PHB to MM direct conversion) but it is fair to consider those drow warriors, not drow commoners. And these would be commoner halflings.

Also, the gnolls could use their longbows, it drops their AC, but they can attack the Halflings long before they halflings can attack. Additionally even if they are using their shields, they can throw spears. 20 ft means that if the halflings are at the maximum range of their slings it is at disadvantage, but +4 w/disadvantage is still very good against an AC of 11 (or even 12). Looking online that is almost a 1 in 2 chance of hitting with Disadvantage.

The chart I'm looking at says the the halflings with normal rolls vs 15 total and a +2 are looking at 40% accuracy while the Gnolls with disadvantage vs 12 and a +4 are at 42% accuracy.

And halflings need to hit 5 times, compared to a gnoll hitting once. Additionall, a Gnoll would have on average 5 spears according to the MM on page 11, and then they could fall back and use their bows. Which jumps their accuracy up to 65%.

In your best case, where all halflings have a 14 dex, instead of the more likely 12.

It's two groups of skirmishers here with one with local knowledge and subtly prepared ground and that's trying to fall back to fortified positions, bleeding the other as they come and the other trying to melee them. Five gnolls running into 20 kiting halflings lose an average of a gnoll a round and only close 35ft per round - while also losing more distance from the gnoll who fell (say another 10ft due to being spread out). So they lose the first four to close 100ft - and the fifth gets to dash into melee before dying. But it's worse than that. If the gnolls get within 30ft either the halflings get a turn at double effectiveness or they double move and only let the gnolls close 10ft for the turn. Either way, there being no charge action, the gnoll is going to have to dash to make it into melee and that turn is probably going to be brutal for them before they get to attack.

All of which assumes that the gnolls are limited to melee attacks, which they aren't.

And must be assuming the halflings are attacking from 120 ft away and the gnolls aren't choosing to use their bows with a range of 150 ft.

Which, yes, drops their AC. Giving the halfings with disadvantage and +2 vs AC 13 and accuracy of 25% and the Gnolls 65%. With halflings needing to land 5 attacks before the gnolls land 1.

Which is a devastating loss for the halflings.

At 4:1 odds against the gnoll raiding party either the gnolls go for an archery duel on prepared ground or there's a good chance that the halflings wipe them out before any of them make it into melee. And remember this is casually dressed halflings who weren't expecting trouble using MM-equivalent statblocks.

Which ignored the gnolls throwing four of their five spears. And, yes, an archery duel where the gnolls are going to dominate the halflings, by just waiting for the halfling to pop out to attack, then using a readied action to kill them.

Also, this doesn't account for this being at night, when the halflings who don't have darkvision are potentially blinded, versus the gnolls who can see.

There's a reason that social animals tend to dominate. And homo sapiens pushed out homo neanderthalensis despite the neanderthals being bigger, stronger, and having bigger brains. Mass numbers of organised farmers in the real world is an extremely powerful combination.

I 100% agree with this. The problem is the Gnolls are also social and aren't idiots who ignore the tools at their disposal.

 

[Chaosmancer]

As normal you seem to be distorting what's being said.

It's not "any modifications to halflings" that's being objected to. It's simply that modifications to halflings being suggested by people who don't get why people like halflings are about as pleasing to people that like them as modifications to football by people who hate football normally are to people who like football.

If you do not understand something and the appeal of that something and try to change it to fit your preferences it is incredibly likely that what you'll end up changing is why people liked it in the first place, leaving you with something that pleases no one.

I want to note. Once Gammanoodler took the time to engage with my idea, and realized that he was assuming something about my idea that was not true... he accepted my idea for a proposed change.

This position that we will inevitably change what people like because we don't get it, seems to be partially based on the fact that by assuming we don't get it, you are reading details into our proposed changes that aren't there.

 

[Minigiant]

By what metric is this lore good? Like for example I'd be hard pressed to remember any FR lore that rises above meh. And some of it is actively stupid and offensive.

IMHO FR lore defaults to stupid and WOTC didnt care about halflings enough to make it stupid.

 

[Chaosmancer]

How long would any community with only commoners survive? Why are halflings any different?

That's the question. Either we assume that there are relatively settled lands with an established local militia to keep people safe or we don't. If we do have a local militia, it only makes sense that they protect all villages and farming communities in the region. If there is no separate militia then you have to assume that the locals protect themselves.

It doesn't matter what race we're talking about. It's directly contradicted in the lore that halflings are helpless pacifists.

From halfling lore on attitude towards humans: “Humans are a lot like us, really. At least some of them are. Step out of the castles and keeps, go talk to the farmers and herders and you’ll find good, solid folk. Not that there’s anything wrong with the barons and soldiers—you have to admire their conviction. And by protecting their own lands, they protect us as well.”

But the idea that every commoner is on the verge of being eaten doesn't fit your narrative.

So, that part you quoted? That was my response the the halflings sneaking into the Orc camp and stealing back there stuff.

So, why would humans be different? They wouldn't attempt to sneak back and steal from the people that just raided them, because that would probably lead to the raiders coming back and killing more people, and taking the stuff back... again.

Have I said that halflings are completely helpless and have no ways to defend themselves? No. I in fact said the exact opposite. That with a trained miltia and crossbows, they could defend themselves just as well as anyone else. I have been arguing that slings and kiting aren't effective means of doing this. But that speaks more to the limits of slings as deadly weapons in DnD.


But, let us take this a step further, hmm? Let us assume that the humans are protecting all the halfling villages because halflings are just part of the landscape of the human areas. Wouldn't... humans ask for something in exchange? Like, if humans are fighting and dying to keep halflings safe, wouldn't the humans turn the halflings and say "since we are protecting you, you should give us something in compensation"? I mean, this is a pretty significant thing, that the halflings are relying on human protection, and yet there is not a single thought being put into what the humans get out of it, except that it is an unintended consequence because halflings are settling fertile land that could be used by human farmers...

 

[Chaosmancer]

When different people with different perspectives make different counter-claims, it is arguing in bad faith to conflate them.

When different people with different perspectives make literally opposite claims, then trash your argument to respond to one person, while not responding to the other person who made the exact opposite claim as them... it starts to feel like they just want to trash you instead of having a good faith discussion about the situation.


I mean, if the argument is that halflings aren't being used well, and poster C makes that point. Then A attacks them for making that point, then B attacks them because halflings aren't being used well, but that has nothing to do with why C made their point.... then why aren't they addressing poster A too?

We can't address halflings being both popular and not popular, of having a militia and not having a militia, of using money and not using money. But, only us who want a change are being called out, even when people who don't want a change are making contradictory claims.

 

[carkl3000]

I'm going to have to use an analogy here to explain why I'm getting confused.

Singing Amazing Grace in a Devasthana is a bit subversive and odd. Singing Amazing Grace in a Church isn't. In both cases, you are singing the same Song in the same way.

What I am confused about is that if you play the dragonborn and their village the exact same way as you would play a halfling and their village, you are saying I'm doing something different. Or that somehow I should roleplay them differently, because a Dragonborn Commune must be different than a halfling Commune. But you won't say why other than the fact that Dragonborn aren't supposed to be roleplayed this way.

I thought my meaning was pretty clear. I did not say anything about how Dragonborn are supposed to be played.

Now, NPCs might see them differently, I could grant that, but that falls into the hands of the DM. From the player side I can do the exact same story, the exact same way, and you keep saying there is a difference, but I don't know what that difference would be. It isn't like the Dragonborn would be raised being told that their people are more warlike and violent than this village, they would be raised in the exact same manner as the halfling is, really only told about and caring about their village.

This is absurd. Of course halflings tell their children about things that happen outside their village. What makes you think they don't?

I'm not being obtuse, I'm legitimately stumped here. I take a halfling village and a halfling PC, keep all of the personality traits, stories, ect, and just replace the bodies with dragonborn (and obviously make the houses a bit bigger) then... why aren't they going to be RP'd the same way?

The fact that there is a dragonborn village with a culture that is diametrically opposed to the typical dragonborn culture implies some sort of schism at some point in history. Why are these dragonborn living in a peaceful commune when most others are more martially inclined? What is their relationship with other dragonborn setlements? Why would they not tell their youngsters something like, "Someday you might wish to leave our village. If you do you might encounter others who look a lot like you. Just know that they may not be as... kind to outsiders... as you expect them to be."

Now, you could say that maybe this dragonborn commune is completely isolated from all other dragonborn communities and maybe the history of the founding of their village is lost to the mists of time and everyone living there really is oblivious to the fact that there are dragonborn living elsewhere in the world who are less peaceful, less humble, more motivated by honor, etc. If the entire story was confined to that village, you're right, there's no reason for anyone to think twice about just sitting around the campfire singing Kumbayah. The problem is 1) That would require a level of isolation from the rest of the world far more extreme than anyone is proposing for halflings, and 2) How the eff do you write a campaign that takes place entirely within a peaceful village.

Now, say that you do want to start your story with this improbable dragonborn hero living in this improbable dragonborn commune. They have to leave town at some point right? Because otherwise there's no story. They will then encounter other people who themselves have encountered (or at least heard stories about) other dragonborn and this easygoing, humble, kind-hearted dragonborn is not going to fit their expectations whatsoever. The dragonborn from the commune will have a much different experience in the world than the halfling from the shire.

To me, "Dragonborn raised in a peaceful communal village" sounds like a launching point for a good fish out of water story. I think it could be really interesting. The player making that character can play it however they want, but you can be sure that, as another example, if they came across other dragonborn in the world, those other dragonborn would find the hippy dragonborn's apparent lack of drive and martial prowess disgraceful, and they would make their feelings apparent.

 

[carkl3000]

I get what you are saying.

However, I have noticed a trend in this sort of situation. The more the players understand the world of DnD, the harder it is for them to accept things like this. Bugbears are violent creatures who enjoy murdering and breaking things smaller than themselves. A halfling commoner dies to a single attack. Driving a Bugbear off with a rolling pin is something that doesn't make sense.

If it happens in a "family legend" then it works. Because the slightly unreal element of it adds to that sort of story. If it happened off-screen the day before an attack, and the Bugbears come rolling in to attack the village, them needing to be hit repeatedly with axes and swords before they break makes it bizzare and strange that one of them was driven off by a rolling pin.

The players realize that... I just told them a story that realistically wouldn't happen. And knowing it was a story for effect, lessens the effect.

I also understand what you're saying. I do think there are ways to tell the story that can make it fit. I really don't have a problem with a little deus ex machina now and then. Especially in a fantasy setting where there are gods that involve themselves in the story. Besides, Aunt Hattie, canonically, has a QLP and an AFF.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm not thinking it is 1v1, but the numbers show the issue.

If 1v1 is 7 hits to 1 hit, then to defeat a single gnoll and lose only a single halfling you would need 7 halflings.

The issue with this is if the gnolls are inflicting 3:1 casualties then they are still losing the strategic battle heavily. Gnolls are raiders and obligate carnivores which means that they need a ludicrous amount of land to get the meat they need. Meanwhile halflings are notedly good farmers and can therefore support very high population densities. I'm not saying the halflings want 3:1 casualties against them but the gnolls can't take those losses. Not that the halflings want to, admittedly. Gnolls, as raiders, need to keep their packs large because everyone's going to either attack or call for help.

And, if you have even a few Gnoll Hunters and/or Gnawers, this gets even worse because they have bows and increased movement speed respectively. You can't rely on intelligent enemies to stupidly rush into melee and never use tools that can give them the advantage.

And you can't assume the halflings will be stupid either. You can also assume that when the halflings thoroughly fort up in their burrows that the gnolls will go elsewhere. And that the halflings will have prepared the ground.

Also, the gnolls could use their longbows, it drops their AC, but they can attack the Halflings long before they halflings can attack.

Always assuming that the ground is open and the halflings, who prepared the terrain, aren't obscuring the sight lines and using four foot high pieces of cover. Good cover for halflings, lousy for gnolls.

Additionally even if they are using their shields, they can throw spears. 20 ft means that if the halflings are at the maximum range of their slings it is at disadvantage, but +4 w/disadvantage is still very good against an AC of 11 (or even 12).

And what about the halfling's prepared defences - full cover is +5 for AC of 16 or 17. These aren't good numbers.

And halflings need to hit 5 times, compared to a gnoll hitting once. Additionall, a Gnoll would have on average 5 spears according to the MM on page 11, and then they could fall back and use their bows. Which jumps their accuracy up to 65%.

Or down to 0%. The halflings consider they win if the gnolls go away. So the halflings just drop behind cover if the gnolls try this. Disadvantage vs disadvantage with the halflings with far higher numbers, better cover, and better terrain knowledge.

Which ignored the gnolls throwing four of their five spears. And, yes, an archery duel where the gnolls are going to dominate the halflings, by just waiting for the halfling to pop out to attack, then using a readied action to kill them.

What do you mean "pop out". Gnolls have a passive perception of 10. Halflings hide - and attack from behind three quarters cover.

I 100% agree with this. The problem is the Gnolls are also social and aren't idiots who ignore the tools at their disposal.

Which are fewer for raiders than people defending prepared positions on home ground.

And what are gnolls actually going to do at night? They explicitly don't attack fortified positions; they're bullies. Halflings in their holes are effectively in fortified positions. Congratulations - that door has an arrow sticking out of it. They're looking for food and explicitly don't attack fortified positions. Which in gnoll territory halfling burrows are and ones that make the gnolls crawl.

 

[Yora]

The most amazing thing is that this discussion somehow got 4,000 replies.
Why? It's really not that interesting a topic, really.