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.

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?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Okay, let's lean into making halflings a proud merchant race then. That's a fine direction to take them that isn't where they currently are. This plays into their stories of being friendly and gregarious, and could even be an extension of their farming tradition, where they raise livestock and make produce, then go out and sell it. They could be the premier trading race of the world, connecting various groups. This is an interesting direction to go.

If you are doing this, make them the +2 Cha race. That eliminates the redundancy of two +2 Dex races among core. It also would suggest bard and sorcerer as main classes for them which works with their lore.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I'd argue that the larger reason is that most of their race-based resources are invested in developing increasingly obscure brands of elves.

Lead Designer: ok everyone. We now have forest elves, underground elves, shadow elves, sea elves, and snob elves.. what's next?

Number 2: uhhhh...sea-forest elves?

Lead Designer: brilliant Number 2, we get two more from that, one version slightly more forest than than sea...we'll call it a swamp elf

Number 2: ohhh...and the other could be more sea than forest..

Lead Designer: ..exactly Number 2.. we'll call that one...hmmmm.

Number 2: Kelp elf?

Lead Designer: I love it..what's other combinations have we negl...

Jensen: Uh guys.. are we ever going to spell out the differences between Lightfoot and Stout halflings..from the PHB?

Lead Designer: Get out Jensen! Can't you see we're working here? Go make a sandwich or something and leave the work to the professionals.

Number 2: underground shadow elves?

Lead Designer: yesss! More! MORE! keep them coming..

Sneak Peek: Play as the Immortal Astral Elf From Spelljammer: Adventures in Space!

C'mon WOTC, it was a joke not a suggestion.

 

[Faolyn]

I used the word distinct because I wished to avoid this conversation, I did not mean evil only halflings could do but the type of evil they are well suited for both mechanically and thematically.

They can be very evil thieves and assassins. Nobody would expect them to poison the tea or cake which they prepared quite lovingly for you. They'd be good at sneaking up on passersby, garotting them, and stealing their belongings. I mean, since halflings were built to be the thief race, it's pretty obvious that they'd be excellent thieves, and not just the type that opens locks and listens at doors for the rest of the party. They could be actual criminals.

And before you say that they don't want lots of expensive belongings, remember, that's a racial tendency, and there are always outliers.

And you misunderstood my question. I asked about what sort of evil elves and dwarves are particularly suited for.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I do apologize if my attempt to compare Halflings to other races comes off as "whataboutism", that wasn't the intent so much as to point out that Halflings, in my opinion, do not have any significant flaws that aren't present in most races. Further, that some races are a lot worse in this regard than Halflings.

... That is literally what "whataboutism" is.

And yes, I think there are significant flaws in multiple races that should be addressed. That also includes discussing halflings. Responding to that with "but other things are worse" doesn't change the fact that I want to change halflings as well, and in fact just distracts from the discussion.

You say you can't find ways to use Halflings; several of us have pointed out how we use or have used Halflings in this thread.

My very first post in this thread was how I changed the lore of Halflings in my current game, for example. Now if you want to not make any changes, and use something as-is in a game, and you're having problems with that, by all means, dispense with it.

Many people's uses of halflings have been... I'm not sure the most charitable way to put it, but to me most of them are just ignoring the problem. I don't remember your specific examples, but many of them have done some variation of "I don't change anything and just put them in my game" which, you know... doesn't fix any of the issues we bring up. It is basically just telling us to ignore the problems we are having and then we won't have problems, which is far from helpful.

A lot of others seem to go forward with assumptions which I just find to be blatantly untrue or unhelpful. Such as them somehow being the underdog race. Or that somehow they are the unexpected hero race, because there is nothing special about them. Or that they are the race that cares about their friends. None of which feels like a good design space, which is why I push back on it. I'm not just looking for people to just tell me what to do and me bobblehead along, I'm trying to discuss a good design going forward, which means ideas need to be challenged.

But the fact that others have found ways to make Halflings work in our games, I think, shows that this is far from a universal problem.

And since I never claimed it was a universal problem, I don't know what you think this proves?

 

[Chaosmancer]

For you. They fail to do so for you.

Yes. And then other people have said their entire point of halflings are to be boring and unremarkable, which doesn't say "more vibrant and exciting." to me. So I'd say they've failed to do it for them too.

Then do that! This is completely a "you problem." Consider the insane amount of text you've written in this thread. Had you spent one tenth of that effort to write fleshed out halflings that work for you, you'd be done by now!

Ah, the most helpful way to have a discussion.

"Don't talk to other people! If you had just spent your time fixing it yourself you'd be done. You are just wasting everyone's time trying to get a discussion going"

Wonderful advice, I'll be sure to spread it to every thread we ever have, discussion is useless, just work by yourself because that is the only way to get things done.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That, and their world-changing (and cosmos-changing!) technology combined with divine magic, and their post-modern civilizations, etc., all of which ended ages ago but still now and then has influence today.

Every time we see anything in the shape of a hexagon now we immediately think Hobgoblin influence, and are usually right.

So, nothing at all like my example.

Question, though: why must they be unique?

I should note I only have one other shortie in my games, that being Gnomes, thus Hobbits' stature makes them somewhat unusual in itself. (Dwarves are a bit taller, then Elves, then Humans) I should also note we somewhat base on a Tolkein foundation more than does mainstream D&D, though by no means slavishly so - my ten-word campaign summary in that other thread consists of "JRR Tolkein, may I introduce you to Xena, Warrior Princess". Hobbits have their place in such a setting.

Mechanically, they have innate nimbleness and toughness to an extent no other playable species does. They alone also get big bonuses with thrown or fired missiles; all of this coming at cost of a) some Strength and Wisdom (even though they make excellent Clerics they have to fight a small Wisdom penalty to do so), b) a ban on use of weapons over a certain size, and c) and a few soft guidelines on one's backstory. Now of course none of this applies to 5e, but I've no reason to care about that.

Right, none of this applies to 5e, the thing we are discussing. In 5e the halflings don't have unique nimbleness and toughness. They don't get bonuses to thrown or fired missiles. They have no penalities strength or wisdom. They have no bans on weapons.

And most games are not based in Tolkien.

So, why must they have something unique? Because if they don't have something as a hook, then what's the point of having them? I know for you, being hobbits from Tolkien is a hook, but for me and other players I know? That isn't worth anything. We don't dislike Tolkien, but there is far more to fantasy we want to emulate. There are tropes we don't have, and just "is short" isn't enough for us to latch onto and say "Oh, this will make an interesting character." And if it is... there are currently 17 other short races who ALSO have something else unique about them.

And it doesn't have to be the most unique and special idea ever, but it has to be something that we can utilize.

Dunno. Is the gun loaded? Can his chain reach her or the gun, or is he still at range? Etc.

Really? I'd think the answers are rather obvious.

Magic exists, yes, but while individual members of many species can learn how to access and-or use it there's very few species* wherein the great majority of members are taught this. Arcanist Goblins are unheard of+, divine-magic Goblins exist but are very uncommon.

* - in my games Drow and Githi are perhaps the only two.
+ - to use arcane magic requires a certain degree of Intelligence which falls either at or above the species maximum for Goblins.

What we're also running up against here is the ongoing trend, seen most clearly in 5e, to make species mechanically more similar and to remove penalties of any kind. I don't subscribe for a second to the idea that a Hobbit should be on average as strong as a Goliath; and I expect - and demand - that averaging to carry over to PCs of each type. On the respective bell-curve for the species, a Strength-14 Hobbit and a Strength-17 Goliath should be the same - considerably stronger than average but still well below the species maximum.

Result: Goliaths are strong and thus tend toward classes and occupations requiring lots of muscle, Hobbits are nimble and thus trend toward classes and occupations requiring dexterity.

Another differentiator that's been lost is different species' ability (or lack of) to access magic, either arcane or divine. Now it's pretty much the same for everyone, meaning any advantage gained by species that could over those that could not has been erased.

In short: the notion that all species should be more or less equally able to be all classes is IMO fundamentally flawed, and is a great contributor to the same-ness that is making Hobbits (and no doubt some other species) seem dull.

Which, again, has nothing to do with 5e which is what is being discussed. And I think this is rather telling, because allowing equal access to all classes has highlighted that the halflings didn't actually have anything special. And many of the restrictions from older editions were set aside because people didn't like them. I don't want to be penalized for playing the character I want to play, just because someone wants to try and make a reality simulator,

If halflings/hobbits can't survive being in a modern game, then that's not a detriment to the game in my opinion.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't see it as any more problematic than any other racial trait. Better craftsmen, more perceptive, more ambitious, they all have issues.

Because morality is not a racial trait.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If you are doing this, make them the +2 Cha race. That eliminates the redundancy of two +2 Dex races among core. It also would suggest bard and sorcerer as main classes for them which works with their lore.

I use Tasha's, no racial modifiers. But I do agree with the lore direction being notable.

 

[Lanefan]

Right, none of this applies to 5e, the thing we are discussing.

You might be discussing 5e. I'm discussing Hobbits, which are sadly now called Halflings.

In 5e the halflings don't have unique nimbleness and toughness. They don't get bonuses to thrown or fired missiles. They have no penalities strength or wisdom. They have no bans on weapons.

Which tells me the problem doesn't lie with the species itself but with the edition design that has taken away all that made them unique-unusual-interesting.

Al I can say there is, looking to earlier editions for inspiration, Houserules Are Your Friend.

Which, again, has nothing to do with 5e which is what is being discussed. And I think this is rather telling, because allowing equal access to all classes has highlighted that the halflings didn't actually have anything special.

Seems a bit circular from here - the edition design strips away everything that made them special leading to complaints that they aren't special enough.

And many of the restrictions from older editions were set aside because people didn't like them. I don't want to be penalized for playing the character I want to play, just because someone wants to try and make a reality simulator,

On a broad level, I'm sad to say, it's thinking like this which got us into this mess.

Of course people don't like restrictions - but never once do they complain about the corresponding benefits in other areas that balance those restrictions out.

As for "playing the character you want to play", sorry, but just because there's (round numbers) 30 species and 20 classes doesn't necessarily mean that all 600 species-class combinations have to be - or should be - designed as being equally viable; and I posit that doing so would make the game a lesser thing.

Unless all species are made mechanically the same (or very close) a player's choice of either species or class - either one - should IMO strongly influence the choice of the other.

If halflings/hobbits can't survive being in a modern game, then that's not a detriment to the game in my opinion.

Where in my view the detriment is the monster species that are taking their place.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I didn't say halflings would not have crime families. They love family.

What I said is that halfling traits and their base lore in this edition would not nudge them into adapting their hideout completely to their racial benefit. Like you said "less risk averse ( due to bravery, curiosity, and better luck at avoiding catastrophic failure), more communal, more prone to cross-species empathy, more curious, and just the lack of desire to control others or take what others have"

Please extrapolate your reasoning that takes you from the above, to the next paragraph.

Meaning they would be a bit lackadaisical in design, cater to their human gangster allies, and end up fighting straight up. They, to me, would never make a Tucker's Kobolds base outside of a doomsday, death, or post-apoc setting. And thus halflings would fight straight up.

And after 3 session of seeing PCs fighting the Brownboys, halflings stink at fighting straight up. Even after I customized them in the second session. I'm biased though as I run races a bit more flanderized AND ran halfling enemies.

That does not follow. At all. There is an unexplained jump that apperently seems obviously true to you, but makes no sense on any level to me.