• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

RPG Evolution: The Trouble with Halflings

Over the decades I've developed my campaign world to match the archetypes my players wanted to play. In all those years, nobody's ever played a halfling.

Over the decades I've developed my campaign world to match the archetypes my players wanted to play. In all those years, nobody's ever played a halfling.

the-land-of-the-hobbits-6314749_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

So What's the Problem?​

Halflings, derived from hobbits, have been a curious nod to Tolkien's influence on fantasy. While dwarves and elves have deep mythological roots, hobbits are more modern inventions. And their inclusion was very much a response to the adventurous life that the agrarian homebodies considered an aberration. In short, most hobbits didn't want to be adventurers, and Bilbo, Frodo, and the others were forever changed by their experiences, such that it was difficult for them to reintegrate when they returned home. You don't hear much about elves and dwarves having difficulty returning home after being adventurers, and for good reason. Tolkien was making a point about the human condition and the nature of war by using hobbits as proxies.

As a literary construct, hobbits serve a specific purpose. In The Hobbit, they are proxies for children. In The Lord of the Rings, they are proxies for farmers and other folk who were thrust into the industrialized nightmare of mass warfare. In both cases, hobbits were a positioned in contrast to the violent lifestyle of adventurers who live and die by the sword.

Which is at least in part why they're challenging to integrate into a campaign world. And yet, we have strong hobbit archetypes in Dungeons & Dragons, thanks to Dragonlance.

Kender. Kender Are the Problem​

I did know one player who loved to play kender. We never played together in a campaign, at least in part because kender are an integral part of the Dragonlance setting and we weren't playing in Dragonlance. But he would play a kender in every game he played, including in massive multiplayers like Ultima Online. And he was eye-rollingly aggravating, as he loved "borrowing" things from everyone (a trait established by Tasselhoff Burrfoot).

Part of the issue with kender is that they aren't thieves, per se, but have a child-like curiosity that causes them to "borrow" things without understanding that borrowing said things without permission is tantamount to stealing in most cultures. In essence, it results in a character who steals but doesn't admit to stealing, which can be problematic for inter-party harmony. Worse, kender have a very broad idea of what to "borrow" (which is not limited to just valuables) and have always been positioned as being offended by accusations of thievery. It sets up a scenario where either the party is very tolerant of the kender or conflict ensues. This aspect of kender has been significantly minimized in the latest draft for Unearthed Arcana.

Big Heads, Little Bodies​

The latest incarnation of halflings brings them back to the fun-loving roots. Their appearance is decidedly not "little children" or "overweight short people." Rather, they appear more like political cartoons of eras past, where exaggerated features were used as caricatures, adding further to their comical qualities. But this doesn't solve the outstanding problem that, for a game that is often about conflict, the original prototypes for halflings avoided it. They were heroes precisely because they were thrust into difficult situations and had to rise to the challenge. That requires significant work in a campaign to encourage a player to play a halfling character who would rather just stay home.

There's also the simple matter of integrating halflings into societies where they aren't necessarily living apart. Presumably, most human campaigns have farmers; dwarves and elves occupy less civilized niches, where halflings are a working class who lives right alongside the rest of humanity in plain sight. Figuring out how to accommodate them matters a lot. Do humans just treat them like children? Would halflings want to be anywhere near a larger humanoids' dwellings as a result? Or are halflings given mythical status like fey? Or are they more like inveterate pranksters and tricksters, treating them more like gnomes? And if halflings are more like gnomes, then why have gnomes?

There are opportunities to integrate halflings into a world, but they aren't quite so easy to plop down into a setting as dwarves and elves. I still haven't quite figured out how to make them work in my campaign that doesn't feel like a one-off rather than a separate species. But I did finally find a space for gnomes, which I'll discuss in another article.

Your Turn: How have you integrated halflings into your campaign world?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Oofta

Legend
How does "can play in any class" mean you can't be a strong, sturdy, gruff, or surly dwarf? You can certainly put your ASIs in to Strength and Con, and Charisma in D&D means force of personality, wittiness, and ability to influence others, all of which dwarfs have always had in spades; it doesn't mean prettiness, politeness, or sweetness. Giving dwarfs a penalty to Charisma never made any sense when compared to how dwarfs have always been shown in all forms of media.

While I don't particularly agree with the change in direction given with XGtE, I don't have a huge issue with it either. But in the playtests they're going even further ... there is no default. Dwarves used to have common identifying factors including stat bonuses and much of the color is being washed out to just more generic and bland.

I'll still make characters as unique as I can no matter what race I play, races are becoming more and more generic. Different races where every race can optimize for every class is not an inherently better thing as races are just becoming more and more humans with rubber masks. 🤷‍♂️
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I can state "I can make the most amazing thing evah!" but the proof is in the pudding. I agree that I could make a dozen different unique races but the reality is that WOTC is constrained by social norms and expectations. Things that I don't find particularly bad (like my aforementioned dwarves not making optimized wizards) is going the way of the dodo bird.

So given those constraints ... what would you do? Other than making cannibal vegetarians a possibility?

My more kitchen sinky setting has

Rose-Cactus people who can shoot 1d4 thorns at their foes.
Goopmen who create new Goopmen by boiling the bones and flesh of their food or enemies in soup.
Guys with eyes on the back of their heads
Stone constructs who could be programed to have multiple personalities
A plant-insect-lizard symbiotic
Minigiants. Humainods with natural earth magic allowing them to throw boulders like giants and lift large items.
Warcats. Large talking housecats devoted to the War god who were naturally violent and selfish.
Coldmen. Frosty the Snowmen with axe-shovels

I'm sure WOTC could make similar races.
 

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
(like my aforementioned dwarves not making optimized wizards) is going the way of the dodo bird.
Gods forbid their dwarven wizard doesn’t have that 16 in INT at 1st level rather than maybe try to play into their superior CON score and HP or AC with dwarven toughness or armour training or whatever other subrace bonuses they have.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
That may have quite a bit to do with the drift in what Charisma represents in D&D. Back in 1e, it was a measure of a character's physical attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism. It didn't really track exactly the same as it does in 5e as confidence, eloquence, and leadership. It certainly didn't indicate anything related to being able to project your personality with actual magical force. That didn't come around until 3e.
Gruff and surly don't really scream magnetic or persuasive. So dwarves were penalized with respect to non-dwarves in the game mechanics of the time.
But the physical attractiveness part of Charisma was gone by 2e--in fact, 2e specifically described it as being about leadership and not about attractiveness (although 3e brought appearance back into it). And even in 1e, it determined your number of henchmen and thus was clearly about leadership--and Comliness further removed appearance from 1e. 3e and on may have made Charisma the go-to skill for innate casters (but even 1e made it important for bards), but it doesn't mean that Charisma is innately magical.

And honestly, both gruff and surly can be both magnetic or persuasive. Think of how many TV and movie characters there are who are gruff, surly, and likable despite or even because of their gruff surliness. They don't persuade you with a silver tongue; they persuade you by calling you an idiot until you see their point.

And anyway, not having a penalty to Charisma doesn't mean that you can't play a dwarf as gruff or surly. It just means you don't suffer at most a -2 penalty on Charisma rolls simply because you're a dwarf.
 

Oofta

Legend
My more kitchen sinky setting has

Rose-Cactus people who can shoot 1d4 thorns at their foes.
Goopmen who create new Goopmen by boiling the bones and flesh of their food or enemies in soup.
Guys with eyes on the back of their heads
What does that mean, other than being the plot point of a really, really old TV show episode (Dick Van Dyke?) I watched long ago when I was home sick with the flue?
Stone constructs who could be programed to have multiple personalities

A plant-insect-lizard symbiotic
Minigiants. Humainods with natural earth magic allowing them to throw boulders like giants and lift large items.
So ... goliaths?
Warcats. Large talking housecats devoted to the War god who were naturally violent and selfish.
Aka Tabaxi?
Coldmen. Frosty the Snowmen with axe-shovels


I'm sure WOTC could make similar races.

So you listed some. But there's not really much there saying how they're unique or what you do to make them feel different. I mean we have tabaxi, dragonborn, elephant people, hippo people, 200 versions of elves and counting. Coming up with something different is not hard. Coming up with features that make them feel different is the difficulty.

I don't see a rose cactus person being any more unique or special than a halfling, just a different with little or no fantasy or mythical backing.
 

Oofta

Legend
But the physical attractiveness part of Charisma was gone by 2e--in fact, 2e specifically described it as being about leadership and not about attractiveness (although 3e brought appearance back into it). And even in 1e, it determined your number of henchmen and thus was clearly about leadership--and Comliness further removed appearance from 1e. 3e and on may have made Charisma the go-to skill for innate casters (but even 1e made it important for bards), but it doesn't mean that Charisma is innately magical.

And honestly, both gruff and surly can be both magnetic or persuasive. Think of how many TV and movie characters there are who are gruff, surly, and likable despite or even because of their gruff surliness. They don't persuade you with a silver tongue; they persuade you by calling you an idiot until you see their point.

And anyway, not having a penalty to Charisma doesn't mean that you can't play a dwarf as gruff or surly. It just means you don't suffer at most a -2 penalty on Charisma rolls simply because you're a dwarf.

It's not about playing a gruff individual dwarf though. It's about the stereotypical dwarf being gruff so that you can either have fun playing up the trope or you play one that is not gruff and it stands out from the crowd as something different.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
While I don't particularly agree with the change in direction given with XGtE, I don't have a huge issue with it either. But in the playtests they're going even further ... there is no default. Dwarves used to have common identifying factors including stat bonuses and much of the color is being washed out to just more generic and bland.

I'll still make characters as unique as I can no matter what race I play, races are becoming more and more generic. Different races where every race can optimize for every class is not an inherently better thing as races are just becoming more and more humans with rubber masks. 🤷‍♂️
Dwarfs still have common identifying factors in One. In fact, they've been given a hugely flavorful bonus: stonecunning is now tremorsense, which is both unique to them and is far more useful, mechanically, then just getting a bonus to know the history of stonework--which is something that is totally useless if you have a DM who themself doesn't know and can't improvise the history of whatever piece of stonework the dwarf is looking at.

I don't even like One all that much (I've got Level Up, thenk yew), but even I have to admit that is a cool racial ability.

A +2 to a stat, by comparison, is boring. Does it matter if you get that bonus because of your race or because you hit 4th level and put the bonus into it?
 

Cruentus

Adventurer
But the physical attractiveness part of Charisma was gone by 2e--in fact, 2e specifically described it as being about leadership and not about attractiveness (although 3e brought appearance back into it). And even in 1e, it determined your number of henchmen and thus was clearly about leadership--and Comliness further removed appearance from 1e. 3e and on may have made Charisma the go-to skill for innate casters (but even 1e made it important for bards), but it doesn't mean that Charisma is innately magical.
I feel like they needed to find something for Cha to do in the game, since it moved slowly away from hirelings, henchmen, and domain play at "named" level. Cha didn't mean much once people stopped using Reaction Charts and such.

We always played it as a combo of leadership and attractiveness. The lower your score, the more you rubbed people the wrong way, or they didn't like the way you looked. It certainly doesn't track exactly, because you can be "not attractive" and be a great leader, or "the most beautiful thing" and a terrible leader. I prefer to keep it tied to Leadership myself.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
I don't see a rose cactus person being any more unique or special than a halfling, just a different with little or no fantasy or mythical backing.
Minigiant didn't tell you any of their abilities beyond the thorns thing or any of their society or culture. So how do you know that they're not unique or special?
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
It's not about playing a gruff individual dwarf though. It's about the stereotypical dwarf being gruff so that you can either have fun playing up the trope or you play one that is not gruff and it stands out from the crowd as something different.
Exactly! And one who is "something different" shouldn't get a penalty to Charisma.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top