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.

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

I remember a time when Gnomes were pushed out of the core PHB and into the Monster Manual, and players lost their collective minds. Over Gnomes.

I really doubt removing Halflings from the core PHB would go over any better.
I wonder if it was that Gnomes were moved (meh, who cares). Or that they were moved for Dragonborn, Eladrin, and Tieflings (wtf, who are the trying to appeal to that isn't us*!). It feels like the 5e approach of including all the basic ones from former editions was a smart play.

* Us = old time players like me, the person typing this.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I wonder if it was that Gnomes were moved (meh, who cares). Or that they were moved for Dragonborn, Eladrin, and Tieflings (wtf, who are the trying to appeal to that isn't us*!). It feels like the 5e approach of including all the basic ones from former editions was a smart play.

* Us = old time players like me, the person typing this.
I was annoyed when Bard and Barbarian were moved out in favor of warlord too. I was told just hang out until PHB II and PHB III came out, but I was already gone by then.
 

it would have to compete with the classic two and we do not know how willing they are to add more pages hence the slot.
plus fourth most common race is a significant thing to be given halflings low relevance in most settings.
They were willing to add dragonborn and tieflings, both of which had to compete with the "classic four." And they added drow to the "classic two" types of elf.

It's really not a competition. New players won't know that goblins are unusual in comparison to halflings or gnomes, and many, possibly even most, more experienced players either won't care or will be pleased to see them in the main book.

And how often a race is used depends very heavily on the table. As I said, in one of my games, three of the five PCs are halflings. When I built this world[1], I spent literally about two minutes thinking about a way to make halflings more prominent. Their write up in the race-sheet I put out was maybe two short paragraphs. Maybe other DMs need to also spend a few minutes thinking up a niche for the halflings and gnomes in their settings, or carving out a niche for them in an established setting.

As an aside, in my Ravenloft game, I limit the races to human and human-adjacent: "faerie-touched" (half-elves), homebrew caliban, and now, the three races from VGR. There was one human, but the player didn't like her character (a ranger) and so had me kill her off, and how she's playing a caliban. In the other games we're playing that I'm not running, there's not a single human character, despite human's high relevance in all of these settings: two games are in the Realms, and the third is Eberron; one player is planning on running Spelljammer game when that comes out and based on what the other players have mentioned, I'm about 99% positive there's no humans there, either.

So sure, maybe D&D Beyond and AL games reports lots of humans and few halflings, but honestly, only a fraction of players use D&D Beyond.


[1] The house we gamed at, in the Before Times when we still gamed in person, belongs to the parents of one of our group; he's since moved out, but his parents are lovely people who didn't mind us using their huge table. They also hosted a student every year. We would always ask the student if they wanted to join us and mostly they'd smile and back away slowly but one guy was actually interested. None of the games we were currently running were really appropriate for newbies--I was running Ravenloft, for instance, and I didn't want this guys introduction to D&D to be horror--but since I always have a zillion setting ideas in my head at any moment, I very quickly banged one out. Like, within a couple of hours. As it turns out, once the student stopped gaming with us, the rest of the players liked the setting enough to want to continue with it. And we still have three halflings. Oh, and the student played a gnome.
 


Separately, I disagree regarding the "size" of racial traits vs. PF2e feats. Fey Ancestry gives some protection against charm, specifically.
This to me is an inaccurate comparison. The analogue to Fey Ancestry is Elf feat Forlorn, which gives a +1 circumstance bonus to emotion effects, and successes become crits. By way of comparison, Fey Ancestry gives advantage on charm effects AND magic can’t put you to sleep.

The only times you'd want to spend additional feats to continue to use Elven Weapons at higher levels are in instances where you somehow have chosen a class that doesn't grant critical specialization and/or somehow grants particular weapon proficiencies without including your chosen elf weapon. Not getting crit spec can happen, but not that frequently among the weapon martial classes. The weapon advancement thing pretty much never happens for martial classes. The fault in PF2e for these is content bloat rather than the incorporation of feat taxes.
You could take Elf Weapon Familiarity if you are martial class that really wants to use an Elven Curved Blade for some reason.

Or, you could take it as a non-martial class for RP reasons or to complement your spells/bombs. In that case, Elven Weapon Expertise is a feat tax to continue to use the weapon past 13th level. (Plus, you are one step behind from 7th to 13th level).
Regarding Lore, sure. But most all PF2e characters are proficient in the lore for their background (e.g alcohol lore, warfare lore, tanning lore, etc) almost like the lore they know about is the stuff they were doing. And the feat they might use to become trained in the lore of their people also includes multiple incremental skill proficiencies. But in any case, it's not like there is racial lore knowledge granted to 5e characters at all.
If a feat says that you need to take it to become trained in Elf Lore, characters who don’t take aren’t trained in Elf Lore. The exception proves the rule.

Coming out of this discussion, the thing I'm curious about is how much practical experience you have with PF2e? It has faults, as I've mentioned, but the things you're highlighting seem to include misunderstandings that would have gotten ironed out between rulebook reading and character creation/live play. Could just be table/player variation?
Just Wow! I disagree with you therefore I don’t have equivalent experience in PF2? That doesn’t sound condescending at all!
 

I felt the same...

Then I read the warlord and all was forgiven.

But swear to god, I will fully engage in a decade long misinformation campaign against 5.0e if they remove halflings.
How would you feel if, instead of removing them, they hid all the relevant lore and mechanics within a section for another medium race (as a non sequitur within the section, not as a member of that race)?

Personally I think that'd be a great yardstick by which to identify the "real" halfling players.

I'm just imagining the editors going.."I'll show you 'Naturally Stealthy'".
 


This to me is an inaccurate comparison. The analogue to Fey Ancestry is Elf feat Forlorn, which gives a +1 circumstance bonus to emotion effects, and successes become crits. By way of comparison, Fey Ancestry gives advantage on charm effects AND magic can’t put you to sleep.


You could take Elf Weapon Familiarity if you are martial class that really wants to use an Elven Curved Blade for some reason.

Or, you could take it as a non-martial class for RP reasons or to complement your spells/bombs. In that case, Elven Weapon Expertise is a feat tax to continue to use the weapon past 13th level. (Plus, you are one step behind from 7th to 13th level).

If a feat says that you need to take it to become trained in Elf Lore, characters who don’t take aren’t trained in Elf Lore. The exception proves the rule.


Just Wow! I disagree with you therefore I don’t have equivalent experience in PF2? That doesn’t sound condescending at all!
Yes all emotion effects, not just charm, and pushing success into crits typically means that you are fully negating that effect on a success. It's emotion effect Evasion in 5e parlance. It applies to more things and has a comparable to stronger effect (imo - though with tiered levels of success in PF2e, that can be a pretty nuanced conversation).

The Elven Curve Blade is a martial weapon. Most martial characters get scaling martial weapon proficiency. The weapon is uncommon, so you may need the feat in so you can get the weapon (in case your DM decides not to let you find or buy one for some reason), but most martial characters get nothing beyond that out of the feat.

And sure, if you want your non-martial to use those weapons, you could choose to look at the additional feats as taxes, or you could choose to look at them as tools to allow your character to do things that are not well supported by the class you have chosen. But they are taxes you choose to pay along the way, rather than being stuck with potentially vestigial features provided at character creation.

With regard to Lore skills, there are literally infinite types of Lore you can be trained in. And it is not typically a check I've seen a DM call for so much as something a player will ask if it applies. Besides that, I don't know why anyone would assume that a given character would automatically be up on their racial lore. Some folks are really into geneaology/history related to their families. Some are really into historical battles and tactics. Some are really into booze. 5e doesn't even have Lore skill as a concept. Pf2e let's you spend a feat and get some skills and the lore. Seems more like a feature than a bug to me.

I'm sorry if it seems condescending to question your play experience. But your way of describing mechanics does not come close to how I've seen those mechanics in play. It could well be table variation, in which case I'm genuinely curious about your experience and why it differs from mine.

For me, I've been playing off and on for about a year and half. Our characters are currently level 8 and I've used 4 PCs in 4 different classes through those levels (one low level spell caster and 3 different martials; 1 dead, 2 semi-retired, 1 current).
 
Last edited:

I remember a time when Gnomes were pushed out of the core PHB and into the Monster Manual, and players lost their collective minds. Over Gnomes.

I really doubt removing Halflings from the core PHB would go over any better.

Oh it would cause a riot.

But it wouldn't be hard to agree that halflings mostly get a legacy inclusion. Halfling are heavily played because they are rarely banned and so often an option at every table.


But if 5e does 12 classes each with at least 2 subclasses, 6e can handle 12 base races.
 

For me, I've been playing off and on for about a year and half. Our characters are currently level 8 and I've used 4 PCs in 4 different classes through those levels (one low level spell caster and 3 different martials; 1 dead, 2 semi-retired, 1 current).
Played through Plaguestone, not a success. Decided to give it another shot with Abomination Vaults, completely different table, dropped it at the end of book 1. Ran a One-shot for my kids, also a dud.

Overall, despite some good ideas, the system is a slog to play.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top