What's the platonic ideal of a DnD party?

[Protato]

I'm wondering, what do people think the platonic ideal of a DnD party is, or rather, what images would pop in your head for a stereotypical party? I'm asking in the fifth edition forum but it could work with other editions well enough.

For me, it'd be simple. There'd be a Standard Human Champion Fighter with a longsword who's parents died in a bandit attack and he left to hunt them down for revenge. Next is an Elf Evocation Wizard with the pointy hat and the robes with a magical wand, who uses mainly fire spells. He left his wizarding school behind to prove himself. Then, we have a Half-Elf Thief Rogue, who acts as the socialite in the group and steals from the rich to give to the poor. Finally, there's a Life Cleric Mountain Dwarf with a warhammer that acts surly but has a good heart and loves beer.

[ImproperJustice]

There’s a pretty good meme out there about how a D&D party sees themselves:
Cleric encouraging the others to forth because she will heal their wounds, the fighter saying he will protect the others, the Rogue saying he will look for traps and loot, and the wizard preparing to slay the enemy with spells.

Then the second image is what we actually are:

A Minotaur hurling a bloodthirsty halfling at the enemy, a Warlock screaming about burning everything, a confused fighter asking about the rules, a druid riding a bear in the ceiling yelling look at me, and a Grim Dark Elf in the back telling everyone they stink.

I think that best sums up my experience with answering your question :)

[SLOTHRPG95]

I'm wondering, what do people think the platonic ideal of a DnD party is, or rather, what images would pop in your head for a stereotypical party? I'm asking in the fifth edition forum but it could work with other editions well enough.

For me, it'd be simple. There'd be a Standard Human Champion Fighter with a longsword who's parents died in a bandit attack and he left to hunt them down for revenge. Next is an Elf Evocation Wizard with the pointy hat and the robes with a magical wand, who uses mainly fire spells. He left his wizarding school behind to prove himself. Then, we have a Half-Elf Thief Rogue, who acts as the socialite in the group and steals from the rich to give to the poor. Finally, there's a Life Cleric Mountain Dwarf with a warhammer that acts surly but has a good heart and loves beer.

That's interesting, in my mind's eye I view the races of the fighter and the cleric switched. Oh, and the rouge is a halfling, who's more of a sharp-tongued mischief-maker than a Robin Hood. And obviously the dwarf and human have somewhat different characterizations as well, being of different classes. I'd say the dwarf fighter is probably a misfit in kingdom/clan who therefore seeks fortune and glory among humans, and wields either a hammer or an axe. The human cleric could still be seeking revenge, but for the slaying of their parish (not parents), and probably wielding a mace or cudgel.

[Asmotherion]

Well, mine goes as follows:

The Arcane Caster: Leader of the group, has a versalite selection of spells and knows how to effectivelly combine their effects strategically. Has one or two Blasting tricks among them, as well as a "Signature Cantrip" that might as well have been their weapon. Even if they can dub as a Gish, they mainly do so to protect the back row from attackers that come thinking about a "Frail Caster". They enter the scene with some Magic-Oriented Mission that may be the reason the party binds together in the first place, and keep getting hold of the people that have proven themselves useful, for missions to come.

The Divine Caster: More than heals the party, is also an excelent Gish type. Will also buff/debuff with spells when the opportunity rises, but is better in the Front Row. I like the Non-Good Deities Clerics (In case it's a Cleric) better, as they give a Deeper perspective of what a wise person of an unconventional Point of View would champion as a cause. Clerics of Boccob for example are my favorite party members. It would be a Down to earth person, with a lot of respect for Magic, but also reminding how all things, when you put them into perspective, need not to be taken at heart, as they don't really matter.

The Skill Monkey: Usually a Bard or a Rogue, this person not only dubs and supports the other roles, they are actually better than people at accomplishing things. Need some virtually unbeatable DC beaten? Ask the Bard or Rogue to work their way through it via a skill they have expertese in. I imagin one well dressed, and even if they wear some (leather) armor, it's ormented with a Cape, a flashy Hat with a Feather, and one can see an expensive looking shirt from underneath their armor.

The Melee Underdog Hero Type: This is usually the underdog in a party of amazing people. They are only good at two things: Dealing and Receiving Damage. As the story unfolds, they become usually more important than meets the eye, becoming (or turning out to be) a Knight instead of a simple Hired Thug for protection. They might be a Wizarding School Dropout, but still remember a few tricks from back then, and can use them in combat. The Arcane Caster is a Mentor Figure for them in spellcasting, wile they train everyone to be better at handling melee combat and getting fit (The Divine Caster Included).

[JakOfAllTirades]

I think Order of the Stick pretty much nailed it.

[Tiadoppler]

The default answer (and so probably the best one if you're looking for stereotypical D&D parties) is probably:

Tough: Fighter
Clever: Rogue
Wise: Cleric
Smart: Wizard


but I'd also suggest an answer involving temperament or ideals:

Lawful Good: Paladin or Cleric. Doing what's right, the right way.
Chaotic Good: Bard, Sorcerer or some Rogues. Doing what's right, and sticking it to The Man.
Chaotic Neutral: Barbarian, Rogue or Warlock. Doing whatever I want, as long as it doesn't annoy my friends too much. Which way to the quest reward?
True Neutral: Druid or Wizard. "I'd rather be somewhere else, alone, but as long as I'm here with you people, I'll keep lending you my infinite arcane might in exchange for a share of the loot."
Neutral Good: Fighter or Ranger. Doing what's Right, because I'm the Protagonist. (depending on campaign setting, this may be followed by "... Dammit.")

[Darth Ultron]

1.Standard Human ChampionBarbarian--The Barbarian trumps the fighter by leaps and bounds. Bare chested, long hair, big axe or sword. A warrior sure, but also well versed in nature and has a big heart.

2.Mysterious Elven Archer Warrior Wizard--Jack of all, but master of none, but mixing all together flawlessly.

3.Dwarf Tank Fighter--A small walking wall of armor and weapons.

4.Sneaky Halfling Rogue--Small and sneaky..what your coins.

5.Mysterious Human Priestess--Wise and knowledgeable, with magic and healing.

[Tanarii]

In 5e:
Human Cleric (probably Life)
High Elf Eldritch Knight
Dwarf Battlemaster
Halfling Champion/Thief

In classic D&D it would be either a Dwarf or a Halfling, and a (Human) Thief instead. In AD&D the Elf would be a Fighter/Magic-user in AD&D.

5th Wheel in classic or AD&D would be a Magic User. In 5e a Wizard (Evoker) or a Half-elf Bard.

[Anonymouswizard]

Fire, fire everywhere. There is nothing that isn't burning.


To go for what the actual characters are like:
-Human or dwarf Barbarian, wields an axe, possibly bare chested, likes ale, fighting, and fighting over ale.
-Human Cleric, wields a mace, doesn't actually act that religious if I'm not playing them. Sometimes replaced by the human or ef Druid as an excuse not to act religious despite playing a priest.
-Human or halfling Thief/Rogue, uses a short sword or dagger, and probably steals from the party. Is the reason the GM banned PVP, but is still allowed to antagonise other players. Might be an elf.
-Human or elf magician. If a wizard wears a robe (but no pointy hat) and carries a staff, if a sorcerer wears something hilariously revealing and carries a wand despite having no place to store it. If a bard they're clad in either leather armour or, of the barmaid was married, their undergarments.
-Elf or half elf Ranger. Wields a bow, unless they're a drow in which case it's two scimitars. Looks down on all nonelves in the party.
-The player using some form of stupid build, like the Chaotic Neural 8STR 8CHA Gnome Polearm Master Champion Fighter/Oath of the Crown Paladin. With the Entertainer background.

[Arkhios]

That's interesting, in my mind's eye I view the races of the fighter and the cleric switched. Oh, and the rouge is a halfling, who's more of a sharp-tongued mischief-maker than a Robin Hood. And obviously the dwarf and human have somewhat different characterizations as well, being of different classes. I'd say the dwarf fighter is probably a misfit in kingdom/clan who therefore seeks fortune and glory among humans, and wields either a hammer or an axe. The human cleric could still be seeking revenge, but for the slaying of their parish (not parents), and probably wielding a mace or cudgel.

So, basically, the 3.5 iconic heroes:

Jozan, Human Cleric.

Tordek, Dwarf Fighter.

Mialee, Elf Wizard.

Lidda, Halfling Rogue.

...that pretty much sums it up for me too.

[No brains]

I sort of wonder why the did away with the 'iconic heroes'. Maybe because they took up too much space in rules text and being archetypal does not equate to being very interesting? Much as I liked them, I have to admit I know squat about the characters.

[Anonymouswizard]

I sort of wonder why the did away with the 'iconic heroes'. Maybe because they took up too much space in rules text and being archetypal does not equate to being very interesting? Much as I liked them, I have to admit I know squat about the characters.

The idea is actually pretty sound and used by other games, a bunch of characters that reappear in various illustrations and/or flavour text to help define style and increase the sense of continuity. It doesn't even stop you from having other characters, 3.X went overboard but most games will mix pictures with their 3-5 SCs and pictures showing other one off characters.

I feel much less impressed by 5e compared to 3.5 entirely because we still have the old 'here's an example of what a class member might look like', but they're not named (they also miss the charming fact that 3.Xs signature characters were delightfully stereotypical in their race selection). Also the picture meant to show a paladin doesn't look much like one to me, 4e did a much better job there.

I actually find most of the characters used to illustrate races interesting, barring Mr Do'Urden. Wouldn't mind seeing pictures of their adventures.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

For me it is:

The human Druid who don't have anyreson to be there but stuck in the party.
He always looking for sex.

The Half-Orc Barbarian that bellive to everyfing you tell them and crazy strong(if female also have 18 cha vut 3 wiz and int).

The Bard that have an army of same sex followers, you can hear weird noises from thire tent. Can convinse you that you are a girraf and know everything.

The Halfling Rogue knife trower that use the bard for free murder when the drunken gurds try to rape her and can one hit kill only bosses(she always roll low vs weak enemis).

I may have priblem with English and it is not my language.

[Maelynn]

I think Order of the Stick pretty much nailed it.

This. Nuff said.

[Tanarii]

Mialee, Elf Wizard.This one always bothered me.

Elves should be Fighter/Wizards*. But iconic Wizards should be Human. Yay for the grognard stereotyping inside my head :smallamused:

*Or possibly archer Rangers, that's a later D&Dism innovation that stuck.

[JellyPooga]

- "The Brave Leader". A warrior type; Fighter, Barbarian or Paladin. Almost never a Ranger (one exception being the Aragorn-a-like). Charismatic, Strong, leads from the front.

- "The Advisor". Usually a spellcaster of the learned kind (usually a Cleric or Wizard, sometimes a Druid), but sometimes a clever Rogue can fill this role. He (or she) is the wise or cunning council behind the Leaders moral conscience.

- "The Outcast". Sometimes a friend of the Leader, sometimes a hired mercenary or "local guide" type. Occasionally a "hanger-on" or otherwise unexplained addition to the party. Often a Rogue or Ranger, but sometimes another warrior or classically unique, foreign or unusual Class (like Monk or Druid). Often cynical, usually worldly wise compared to the Leaders idealistic vision, but often trapped by their own limited world view.

- "The Innocent". Often a Cleric, Sorcerer or Rogue. Rarely a warrior. Often perceived as "weaker" or even a liability to the rest of the party, but has obvious strengths in that come into play when the chips are down or in niche situations.

Those are, for me, the basic roles. In larger parties, these often double up, even the Leader, when there can be a power struggle for the top-spot, but it's usually the Outcast and Innocent roles that are the ones that get duplicated.

[Detective]

Let us first start by listing in the most common classes/roles.

Brawn: Fighter, OR barbarian, otherwise they both would clash with one another.
Skill monkey/stealth: Rogue, ranger.
Magic man: Wizard (maybe sorcerer?)
healer-bot/religous man?: Cleric as the go-to, paladin less often(due to paladin essentially also taking the role of "brawn")

Next, the most iconic races for dnd (I think?), tend to be humans, elves, dwarves(dwarfes?), halflings, gnomes, half-orcs and half-elfs.

Before I'll pick each race for each role, let me just exclude two races in my decision(To the dismay of some people, of course): Half-elves, because they are essentially just half humans, half elves- And a full human/elf would fit better in representing the species than just a halfie (P.S- Getting "racism" vibes as I'm writing it, oops).

And gnomes, because I personally think they tend to be in some ways too similiar to halflings, which tend to be more represented in fantasy.

With that, we now come to the decision of what race for each class/role:

healer-bot: Dwarf as a cleric. Dwarves are usually the race that values honor above any other race, and value tradition highly, possibly only matched by elves. Thus, a class that is based around following religious traditions, and the possible honour that comes from getting divine power from a god the dwarves believe in (Or vice-versa, that a dwarf's honour helps him in gaining favor from his god?), make for an easy case.

Magic man: Either an elf or a human, as the other "iconic" races (besides the ones I excluded for this) aren't known for their magic compared to those two, and generally that depends on what you'll want as your brawn.

There is an "exploit" here, where you can put a halfling here instead if you so choose, by having him as a bard (which would fit thematically). People tend to think that it is the wizard/sorcerer (or maybe even warlock) that most exemplify the "magic man" in the group, so keep that in mind (a cleric could technically fill part of the "magic-man" job/role if it concerns you)

Brawn: Classicly, fighter/barbarian should be used by either a human or half-orc. Right off the bat I'll say this: If you pick a half-orc for this job (probably as a barbarian), the human can instead be either rogue or wizard as he pleases, with the elf taking the other spot (I would personally then go for human wizard, and elf rogue).
If, however, you picked the most dull race, human, to the most boring classic class, fighter, let us head on to the last spot:

Skill monkey/stealth: Both humans and elves can fit the bill, but-Assuming you picked them both for other classes already, the halfling would feel right at home.

Now, with my own... Explaination? With my own explaination done, I'll write down in brief what I would pick for the "most classic dnd group"

Heal-boy: Dwarf Cleric.
Brawn: Fighter human.
Magic man:Elf Wizard
Skill monkey/stealth: Halfling rogue.

Also, naturally I envision it is the human fighter that somehow has to end up leading this random group :smallbiggrin:

P.S: Just a disclaimer here: This is merely my answer to the question. If you for instance want to make a goblin paladin of Tyr, go right ahead and go nuts :wink:

[Tanarii]

And gnomes, because I personally think they tend to be in some ways too similiar to halflings, which tend to be more represented in fantasy.
That's interesting, because Gnomes were supposed to be akin to "magical dwarves", or possibly "magical elf-like dwarves".

Whereas Halflings basically were "small non-magical human". With later subraces for "small non-magical dwarf-like human" and "small non-magical elf-like human".

[Asmotherion]

I sort of wonder why the did away with the 'iconic heroes'. Maybe because they took up too much space in rules text and being archetypal does not equate to being very interesting? Much as I liked them, I have to admit I know squat about the characters.
It kinda interfered with some people's overall views of the class, making them more stereotypical. Overall, I think the idea would work wonders in some form of comic. This however would require some major investment on the Wizard's part, and the outcome could go both ways.

[EyelessStarfish]

Regardless, there's still likely the super edgy player at the table who plays the Drow Rogue/Assassin and doesn't interact with the rest of the party because he's a "lone wolf" and believes he's too cool for the rest of the table.

[Nifft]

One Halfling Thief, one Aasimar Wizard, and a dozen Dwarf Fighters.

[Tanarii]

Regardless, there's still likely the super edgy player at the table who plays the Drow Rogue/Assassin and doesn't interact with the rest of the party because he's a "lone wolf" and believes he's too cool for the rest of the table.
or vlad, the Human vengeance paladin who's family was killed by vampires and wants revenge.

[Detective]

That's interesting, because Gnomes were supposed to be akin to "magical dwarves", or possibly "magical elf-like dwarves".

Whereas Halflings basically were "small non-magical human". With later subraces for "small non-magical dwarf-like human" and "small non-magical elf-like human".

Thing is, I think you can ask just about any non-hardcore dnd fan/player, and they might not be able to tell the exact differences and meaning behind the gnome's and halfling's existence- Heck, I sure can't :redface:

Compared to the dwarf's well defined stereotypes and personalities, the gnomes and halfling just seem less known and/or distinct if you compare them to one another.
Mind you, that could be a different topic in its entirety- Lets not dertail this thread's topic :smallwink:

[GreyBlack]

How many characters in the party? IIRC, 5e is balanced around 5 characters, so I'll make that assumption.

The classic platonic ideal 5e party would be:

Champion Fighter - Human - Folk Hero
Thief Rogue - Halfling - Criminal
Illusionist Wizard - Gnome - Sage
Life Cleric - Dwarf - Noble
Lore Bard - Half-Elf - Entertainer

[Anonymouswizard]

Thing is, I think you can ask just about any non-hardcore dnd fan/player, and they might not be able to tell the exact differences and meaning behind the gnome's and halfling's existence- Heck, I sure can't :redface:

Compared to the dwarf's well defined stereotypes and personalities, the gnomes and halfling just seem less known and/or distinct if you compare them to one another.
Mind you, that could be a different topic in its entirety- Lets not dertail this thread's topic :smallwink:

It's interesting, if you swapped out the Rock Gnome's technological bent for just generic crafting then they'd be really good mythological dwarves (who has quite a bit of magic). I personally dislike forest gnomes for being too close to halflings and elves, but rock gnomes have a lot to differentiate them from other races (being possibly the most talented race at Arcane magic, a tendency towards clockwork and other 'technologies' compared to a dwarf's 'crafts', an innate resistance to magic, and a handful of other benefits that should shape their society).

While dwarves are creating the magic swords and elves are inventing the spells, it's the gnomes coming up with the bags of holding, the clockwork automata, the belt of many tools, and the self-cleaning scabbard.

[Kane0]

So, we're looking for archetypes rather than characters?

Dwarf fighter (Soldier, Champion)
Human Cleric (Acolyte, Life)
Halfling Rogue (Urchin, Thief)
Elf Wizard (Sage, Evoker)

5th wheels & substitutes:
Half-Orc Barbarian (Outlander, Frenzy)
Half-Elf Bard (Entertainer, Lore)
Elf Ranger (Outlander, Hunter)
Tiefling Warlock (Criminal, Fiend)
Human Monk (Hermit, Open Hand)
Human Paladin (Noble, Devotion)
Dragonborn Sorcerer (Folk Hero?, Draconic)
Human Druid (Hermit, Land)

[Tanarii]

Thing is, I think you can ask just about any non-hardcore dnd fan/player, and they might not be able to tell the exact differences and meaning behind the gnome's and halfling's existence- Heck, I sure can't :redface:
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with the way you viewed them. Just that it was interesting you saw them that way, given my perception & understanding of their D&D history.

[Kiero]

I think Order of the Stick pretty much nailed it.

Has anyone done the Order of the Stick as 5e characters?

[MeeposFire]

I sort of wonder why the did away with the 'iconic heroes'. Maybe because they took up too much space in rules text and being archetypal does not equate to being very interesting? Much as I liked them, I have to admit I know squat about the characters.

Well if you look around 5e enough you will see that there are several characters that they use a number of times over several books much like those 3e iconic characters. Some as individuals and others as a party. The only major difference is that as far as I recall they do not have given names (also if you look around they have quotes from characters that share the names of older iconic characters in some books which is fun).

[Detective]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with the way you viewed them. Just that it was interesting you saw them that way, given my perception & understanding of their D&D history.

That is fine, I didn't find it "problematic" or something if you had a differing opinion- People have the right to have their own opinions after all :wink:.

In short, you don't have anything to apologize for. For something as old as DnD, there are bound to be differing opinions on matters.

[SLOTHRPG95]

So, basically, the 3.5 iconic heroes:

Jozan, Human Cleric.

Tordek, Dwarf Fighter.

Mialee, Elf Wizard.

Lidda, Halfling Rogue.

...that pretty much sums it up for me too.

True, although I was more thinking in AD&D terms, i.e.

Human Cleric, because you didn't roll well enough for anything better.

Dwarf Fighter, since you rolled good Strength and Con, and wanted that sweet, sweet magic resistance.

Elf Mage, since you got good Int, but not enough Dex or Str/Con to go Rogue/Mage or Fighter/Mage. Oh, and because you're tired of playing Gnome Illusionists, even if they get that extra point of Int and illusions are fun.

Halfling Thief, because they're sneaky and hilarious to play.

[Devils_Advocate]

The relevant cliches don't all enforce each other. For example, dwarves may default to being fighters and clerics, but fighters and clerics default to using swords and maces respectively, whereas dwarves go for axes and hammers. Similarly, dwarves are stereotypically Lawful Good, but the quintessential Lawful Good character is a paladin, which in turn isn't very dorfy.

Conversely, Ranger works better for elves than Fighter/Mage, what with the stealth and the connection to nature and the tendency towards Chaotic Good alignment, in addition to swordplay, archery, and magic.

But anyway, we're supposed to be optimizing for stereotypical overall party, not stereotypical members of individual classes, races, alignments, or so on. That pretty much means that Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Thief are given, but I think we can cram a few more in:

- Lawful Good Hill Dwarf Soldier Champion Fighter
- Lawful Neutral Human Sage Evoker Wizard
- Neutral Good Human Acolyte Life Cleric
- True Neutral Lightfoot Halfling Criminal Thief Rogue
- Chaotic Good Wood Elf Outlander Hunter Ranger
- Chaotic Neutral Half-Elf Entertainer Lore Bard

[KorvinStarmast]

The default answer (and so probably the best one if you're looking for stereotypical D&D parties) is probably:

Tough: Fighter
Clever: Rogue
Wise: Cleric
Smart: Wizard
And one draft choice to be named later:
Ranger
Bard
Barbarian
Druid
Sorc
Warlock
Monk
Paladin

Pick one

The four basic classes make up the fingers of the hand. The opposable thumb completes the party, as the thumb closes over the four curled fingers to make a fist.

[Nifft]

Obviously there are four basic archetypes, and D&D parties generally conform to those types.

Angry: Barbarian
Bossy: Paladin
Clever: Druid
Smug: Bard

[BurgerBeast]

That's interesting, because Gnomes were supposed to be akin to "magical dwarves", or possibly "magical elf-like dwarves".

Whereas Halflings basically were "small non-magical human". With later subraces for "small non-magical dwarf-like human" and "small non-magical elf-like human".

I could be wrong about this, but I think the three classic D&D halfling subraces (whenever they first appeared - I only remember them from the 2e PHB) were actually taken directly from Tolkien. I think there is mention in the hobbit or LotR of the three subraces if hobbits and they map almost directly onto the three D&D subraces of hairfoots, stouts, and tallfellows (in Tolkien the names were almost identical, I just looked them up: harfoots, stoors, and fallowhides).

Of course there were also Kender, but before 3e I think halflings were pretty clearly hobbits.

Edit: sorry, forgot main thread response.

I would typically go with the genericons but I’m swayed by Tanarii’s tribute to classic D&D.

I think I’d go:

Dwarf Fighter
Elf EK
Halfling Fighter/Thief
Human Cleric (Life)

Fifth Man: Human Diviner

[MeeposFire]

I could be wrong about this, but I think the three classic D&D halfling subraces (whenever they first appeared - I only remember them from the 2e PHB) were actually taken directly from Tolkien. I think there is mention in the hobbit or LotR of the three subraces if hobbits and they map almost directly onto the three D&D subraces of hairfoots, stouts, and tallfellows (in Tolkien the names were almost identical, I just looked them up: harfoots, stoors, and fallowhides).

Of course there were also Kender, but before 3e I think halflings were pretty clearly hobbits.

Edit: sorry, forgot main thread response.

I would typically go with the genericons but I’m swayed by Tanarii’s tribute to classic D&D.

I think I’d go:

Dwarf Fighter
Elf EK
Halfling Fighter/Thief
Human Cleric (Life)

Fifth Man: Human Diviner

Originally they were called Hobbits in D&D but TSR fairly quickly decided to play it safer by using the term halfling instead. So yes the original halflings as we know them were very much inspired by hobbits in LotR.

[Arkhios]

I could be wrong about this, but I think the three classic D&D halfling subraces (whenever they first appeared - I only remember them from the 2e PHB) were actually taken directly from Tolkien. I think there is mention in the hobbit or LotR of the three subraces if hobbits and they map almost directly onto the three D&D subraces of hairfoots, stouts, and tallfellows (in Tolkien the names were almost identical, I just looked them up: harfoots, stoors, and fallowhides).

Of course there were also Kender, but before 3e I think halflings were pretty clearly hobbits.


Originally they were called Hobbits in D&D but TSR fairly quickly decided to play it safer by using the term halfling instead. So yes the original halflings as we know them were very much inspired by hobbits in LotR.

Pardon me for my Off Topic rambling (but back when I was yet to find the vast pools of D&D lore, Tolkien's writings shaped the foundations of young Arkhios' imagination, and I somewhat owe my interest in fantasy to Tolkien, so...)

IIRC, Tolkien's harfoots, stoors, and fallowhides (etc.) were basically just "surnames" or "clans", and the hobbits themselves didn't really differ from one another in any meaningful way, but it seems plausible to think that those names were made to mean something more in the rules (pretty much falling into "Rules As Fun" category), more than just on the surface. And it's definitely more interesting as well as it adds depth to the race.

...although, now that I think of it, I think there were some special occasions where certain individuals of the hobbits' ancestors were mentioned to have some mutual lineage with other races, such as elves or dwarves (or, on one occasion, with the ents; though IIRC, that was more akin to what Meriadoc and Peregrin experienced, growing taller after drinking the spring-water while in Treebeard's custody). But those were special instances, and probably wouldn't have counted as wholly sub-racial differences.

So, my point is, to conclude my ramblings, is that I'm fairly certain that prior to introduction in D&D, hobbits/halflings were just one race with no differences between one another, while D&D later added their sub-races "semi-artificially".

[Maelynn]

Tolkien's harfoots, stoors, and fallowhides (etc.) were basically just "surnames" or "clans", and the hobbits themselves didn't really differ from one another in any meaningful way

Actually, they most definitely were subraces. They differ not only in personality, but also in physical appearance: the Stoors were a bit on the short and stocky side and loved water and boats, the Fallohides had fairer hair and were slightly taller, etc.

The prologue of The Fellowship of the Ring has a part called 'Concerning Hobbits' where it's all described in great detail. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia on Hobbits:


"The Harfoots, the most numerous, were almost identical to the Hobbits as they are described in The Hobbit. They lived on the lowest slopes of the Misty Mountains and lived in holes, or Smials, dug into the hillsides.

The Stoors, the second most numerous, were shorter and stockier and had an affinity for water, boats and swimming. They lived on the marshy Gladden Fields where the Gladden River met the Anduin (there is a similarity here to the hobbits of Buckland and the Marish in the Shire. It is possible that those hobbits were the descendants of Stoors). It was from these Hobbits that Déagol and Sméagol/Gollum were descended.

The Fallohides, the least numerous, were an adventurous people that preferred to live in the woods under the Misty Mountains and were said to be taller and fairer (all of these traits were much rarer in later days, and it has been implied that wealthy, eccentric families that tended to lead other hobbits politically, like the Tooks and Brandybucks, were of Fallohide descent). Bilbo and three of the four principal hobbit characters in The Lord of the Rings (Frodo, Pippin and Merry) had Fallohide blood through their common ancestor, the Old Took."

[WeaselGuy]

Then the second image is what we actually are:

A Minotaur hurling a bloodthirsty halfling at the enemy, a Warlock screaming about burning everything, a confused fighter asking about the rules, a druid riding a bear in the ceiling yelling look at me, and a Grim Dark Elf in the back telling everyone they stink.

I think that best sums up my experience with answering your question :)

omg, I can't stop laughing, this is so accurate.

I've seen a meme were it has the Fellowship of the Ring in the top panel, as how D&D groups start, and the cast from Monty Python's Holy Grail in the bottom panel, as how the group's end.

For me, I always think of:

Half-Orc Barbarian, exiled from his tribe for being half-human, intentionally instigating bar fights, and roleplaying way too heavily that INT is his dump-stat
Human Paladin, trying to keep everybody from killing each other, while still being super judgy about it
Elf Ranger, exasperated by everybody making too much noise, and usually getting himself killed by "scouting ahead" and failing his stealth check
Gnome Wizard, delighting in all of the explosions and illusions (usually of explosions), and trying to figure out exactly what would happen if he put a bag of holding into a leomund's secret chest
Half-Elf Bard, making it all up as he goes along, and usually making too much noise, often times by complaining that he's the only half-decent healer, and also keeping a tally of exactly how much gold he's made "for the group" and that he's spent on wands that may or may not actually be useful

[Whit]

The True Original party group is this from old school 70-80’s. of course champion life etc is closest to original
1. Human fighter champion
2. Human Cleric life
3. dwarf fighter champion
4. Rogue Halfling thief
5. Elf wizard evocation
Then it became
1. Human Cleric life
2. Human paladin devotion
3. Dwarf fighter champion
4. Elf wizard evocation
5. Half lung rogue thief
Then it switched
The human paladin with the elf or 1/2 elf ranger. Forgot which one

[Tanarii]

, my point is, to conclude my ramblings, is that I'm fairly certain that prior to introduction in D&D, hobbits/halflings were just one race with no differences between one another, while D&D later added their sub-races "semi-artificially".


Actually, they most definitely were subraces. They differ not only in personality, but also in physical appearance: the Stoors were a bit on the short and stocky side and loved water and boats, the Fallohides had fairer hair and were slightly taller, etc.Ultimate source of the D&D halfling definitely isn't in really question, although their exact nature in the source material might be. But by the time of AD&D, they'd effectively become "human-halfling", "dwarf-halfling" and "elf-halfling". Stouts even got dwarf racial abilities.

[Nifft]

5. Half lung rogue thief

Is this an oriental adventures half-dragon thing, or just a really unfortunate cigarette smoker?

[No brains]

Is this an oriental adventures half-dragon thing, or just a really unfortunate cigarette smoker?

Insert that picture of Lidda with the wand.

[Nifft]

Insert that picture of Lidda with the wand.

D.A.R.E. to say yes to UMD.