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

All I know is that my all Halfling party would kick a fantasy medieval standing army's ass.

Because my Halflings are heroes. And your standing army are conscripts with no cause worth fighting for.
two words bounded accuracy, followed by the question what type of nation is raising the army?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

they sack villages for food and materials for the Warmachine do you not know war?
If they can (a) find them and (b) get into them. As I've mentioned my halfling villages have the halflings dwell in holes made largely by move earth. They are hard to find (and yes, that's a cantrip). And they have areas that even halflings have to squeeze to get into - so bigger folks are going to not be able to.

What this means is that the only way into a hobbit hole (if you can find it) for most races is by digging. Something that can be done but takes a lot of time compared to just beating the door down or burning things. And burning the fields won't get the stores.
given how common hobgoblin war wizards are the basic battle lines of a fantasy world are loose so the halfling loses their advantage as everyone trains for the loose formation.
This is absolutely wrong. In skirmishers vs skirmishers ranged weapons let you support the rest of your allies in a way melee weapons don't - and ranged weapons are controlled by dexterity. Halflings of course have a dex bonus.

Skirmishers vs skirmishers therefore is good for halflings. It's also good for elves - but the crippling weakness elves have is they have long lifespans and don't breed fast so every casualty suffered in a war takes decades to replace.
how would wholesomeness fight evil it would be subverted like everything else, also what is wholesomeness?
By working together, protecting their own, and healing the injured.
 

Do you guys remember how foxes went extinct because wolves exist? Yeah, me neither.

Also, the standards demanded are utterly absurd. D&D lore in most part doesn't make terribly much sense. You can certainly endlessly nit-pick pretty much any part of it, but there really isn't objectively anything any more wrong with the halfling lore than with the rest of it.
 

slings are terrible against heavy armour which humans are good at making
Are slings more terrible than arrows? There's more force behind them, but D&D seems unable to tell a sling from a slingshot.
who livin larger groups
Do they? Is your average rural human village larger than your average halfling village? Cities are historically major outliers.
and are far better against the million types of large predators who also want the food and resources
How so? Humans can't retreat where halflings can - and ranged weapons are king - which halflings are better with than most humans.
 

two words bounded accuracy, followed by the question what type of nation is raising the army?
I'm unconcerned with the type of nations, because if you insist on the level of "realism" you require of the Halflings my Halflings will win. Because they are heroes and a realistic standing army of those ages dies of disease quickly
 

halflings are defined by being a stand-in for ordinary people many flee and given how utterly unbuilt for combat with the bigger folk of the world they would be muscled out fairly fast.
No, they're not defined by being a stand-in for ordinary people. Players tend to view them that way, but they that is not how they are designed. Nor are they "unbuilt" for combat. They have always had combat bonuses, except in 5e where slings are a simple weapon nearly everyone knows how to use.

my point was the only tactical advantage of halflings was negated ten thousand years ago when an elf or something discovered the fireball spell and made line infantry obsolete thus, against better armed and battle-harded or ruthless opponents halflings would be crushed utterly.
So there are no armies in any D&D worlds anywhere? Wow, I did not know that.

fair point, my only question is stats on how many warrirs and casters?
As many as the DM wants there to be.

where does it says they are likely to be adventures?
Have you not read anything that has actually been written about halflings? They are curious and driven by wanderlust. By definition any halfling who decides to go wandering around is going to gain at least a level or two in something.

you can be a level 20 wizard all you like but you got to sleep and bounded accuracy is a cruel ruler.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Unless you believe halfling towns would have no defense or night watch, and you believe that a level 20 wizard wouldn't protect their home town with as much magic as they could?

to be the good guy race infers they are morally better than everyone else.
No, it implies that they might be nicer than everyone else. Or that they might be more willing to lay down their own lives in protection of others. And really, that's not even the case because elves and dwarfs are also supposed to be good guy races. And halflings were traditionally lawful good, so anything you have to say about dwarfs re: alignment is equally true for halflings.

I have no strong feelings about guerilla fighters, ask yourself what tolkien based his hobbits on and you will find an answer.
I really don't care what he based his hobbits on. I don't play strictly-Tolkienesque halflings, and neither, honestly, do most people who aren't actively playing in Middle-Earth.

So does this mean your actual problem is not with halflings but with Tolkien?

what cultural depth do they have to pull on they are made to be small and harmless, it is bland like Saturday morning cartoon super villains are just generic evil with no reasons for it.
Well, they got a chapter in Mordenkainen's for 5e, a section in Races of the Wild for 3.5, and half of the Complete Book of Halflings and Gnomes back in 2e, as well as numerous articles in Dragon magazine, plus cultural write-ups in most setting books. And dozens of blogs, videos, and articles published online. So maybe actually read some of that stuff and find out for yourself.
 

Do you guys remember how foxes went extinct because wolves exist? Yeah, me neither.

Also, the standards demanded are utterly absurd. D&D lore in most part doesn't make terribly much sense. You can certainly endlessly nit-pick pretty much any part of it, but there really isn't objectively anything any more wrong with the halfling lore than with the rest of it.
that has to do with niche partition they do not compete much, sapient species are a less well-known area as all other have been inter breed with till there was no difference, or died off thus it is unknown but give how willing we are to fight over areas of fertile land there is a high likely who of competition then you add in nomadic raiders and it would likely get ugly fast.
Are slings more terrible than arrows? There's more force behind them, but D&D seems unable to tell a sling from a slingshot.

Do they? Is your average rural human village larger than your average halfling village? Cities are historically major outliers.

How so? Humans can't retreat where halflings can - and ranged weapons are king - which halflings are better with than most humans.
war slings are on average less accurate and worse at armour penetration.

you have forgotten towns and humans stated drive to dominate to rule that halfling all lack.

longbows are beyond them, crossbows are technically too complex for them to build given their lack of industry and large-scale civilization to make the specialised part or the tools for those parts.
also humans have magic and many nations have an arcane and divine tradition which changes the game very fast.
 

my point was the only tactical advantage of halflings was negated ten thousand years ago when an elf or something discovered the fireball spell and made line infantry obsolete thus, against better armed and battle-harded or ruthless opponents halflings would be crushed utterly
Most D&D AoE spellcasting isn't particularly fit for purpose at "Armies scale". The ranges aren't long enough, the areas are too small, the spell slots too few, and most would deal friendly fire once armies had closed ranks.

Until you get to 8th level spellcasting, no AoE damage spell has a range longer than an American football field (or football pitch if you're outside the U.S.). Most of them have half that or less.

There aren't a lot of significant battlefields I'm aware of bounded by so small an area.

Then add in targeting limitations like "a point you can see" and it gets even harder to use.

Real world line infantry was still a thing up through the 20th century. The number of spells in D&D that come close to 20th century weaponry is really small, really high level, and not really that close.
 
Last edited:

I don't really see how humans have a stronger magical tradition than halflings. Sure, maybe, long ago, you couldn't be a halfling wizard, but seeing as how this is the edition that made Mountain Dwarf wizards popular, I think anyone is equally likely to have magical powers in 5e.
 

Racial alignments are not and have never been absolute. Even demons in 1e/2e could be other than CE. In editions 3e and beyond, they just described a general belief, which many of the race did not hold to. Hell, Orcs in 3e could be 51% CE and 49% LG by RAW if the DM wanted.

If this had anything to do with my point, it would matter.

It doesn't, so it doesn't matter.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top