what makes a d&d sub race stick?

[stormofmind]

over the decades we have had many sub-races or alternative options like the 20+ types of elf and multiple types of nearly everything else.
with the new D&D version, a whole bunch seem to be getting cut for dwarves and halflings for example.
this has made me ask myself what makes some options stick and others not.
do you guys have any ideas as I am stumped?

[Unoriginal]

over the decades we have had many sub-races or alternative options like the 20+ types of elf and multiple types of nearly everything else.
with the new D&D version, a whole bunch seem to be getting cut for dwarves and halflings for example.
this has made me ask myself what makes some options stick and others not.
do you guys have any ideas as I am stumped?

People generally like options that stand out to be interesting while still fitting in the existing setting/lore/aesthetics/thematics, and they generally prefer when the species come with significant mechanics.

As a result, there will generally be fewer fans for the 15th type of elves introduced, which got a couple bonuses in snowy-terrain-related situations, than there will be for the 3rd type of gnome, which got some psionic powers, to give an example.

Sometime it's pretty clear when the devs are being lazy, out of touch or uncaring about the lore or mechanics, which will often get the option blasted into oblivion.

[catagent101]

I think the key question for most subraces is "does it still make sense to mechanically represent this". Unlike races which are more or less an objective *thing* in the game world subraces tend to not draw such a hard line and are arguably a different culture as opposed to a different bloodline a lot of the time. Like I'm not a Tolkien scholar or anything but I'm not sure he considered Legolas and Lady whatsername to be distinct on a genetic level or anything like that.

So I guess since the main distinction between the halfling and dwarf subraces were their ability scores they were folded in since there wasn't a role for them to play in the mechanics anymore.

[Jay R]

over the decades we have had many sub-races or alternative options like the 20+ types of elf and multiple types of nearly everything else.
with the new D&D version, a whole bunch seem to be getting cut for dwarves and halflings for example.
this has made me ask myself what makes some options stick and others not.

Each time they start over with a new edition, they are replacing dozens of books with just a few. Some content will not (yet) be included.

Any race that was invented for a specific edition of D&D involves a choice – do we update it to the new edition, or leave it where it is?

By contrast, men (eventually re-named humans), dwarves, elves, and hobbits (eventually re-named halflings) have been in D&D since the first three-pamphlet edition, because players who had never seen D&D wanted to play them.

When you tell somebody about D&D for the first time, after three sentences, nobody says, “I want to play a half-aasimar,” or “Can I be a tiefling?”

But people do say, “I want to play a hobbit like Bilbo,” or “Can I play a dwarf like Gimli?

Races that have, over the decades, pulled people into playing D&D for the first time are more likely to be included than races that people only learned about by playing D&D.

do you guys have any ideas as I am stumped?

I'm pretty sure that's the real answer. While a lot of content has been invented just for D&D, playing in fantasy worlds like the ones we've read has always been a major draw for a lot of people.

[Pauly]

D&D has a ling history of throwing subraces at a wall and seeing which random features stick.
Looking at the two stickiest subraces D&D have produced - Drow and Tieflings I think we can see some commonality.
1 - Visually distinct. Drow by their colouring and Tieflings by their horns.
2 - They both tap into the angtsy outsider who is more badass than the normies theme.
3 - They are both, nominally at least, evil inclined. This allows players to be good guys rejecting their heritage, neutrals struggling with their heritage or evil embracing their heritage.
4 - They are both D&D original creations. I know evil elves and devil spawn aren’t new ideas, but the way they are represented in D&D is distinct.


If you want to generalize a bit further from there, some rules for creating a ‘sticky’ subrace could be:
1- be visually different and appealing.
2- be an outsider. People who play D&D know they’re not mainstream, so have an affinity for outsiders.
3- have some built in roleplaying hooks, especially as it relates to core rules (good/evil axis)
4- be original, not a reskin of someone else’s IP.


The Kender are an example of a non-sticky subrace (treating them as a subrace of gnomes). I think most of it comes down to their chaotic nature which rubs many other players up the wrong way as a lot of Kender players turn up the chaos to 11.

[Luccan]

Part of it is also designer interest. There's no reason different sub races of dwarf and halfling couldn't have interesting abilities, many of the abilities associated with the various elven subraces of 5e didnt exist prior to this edition. The designers just like elves more.

[Unoriginal]

The Kender are an example of a non-sticky subrace (treating them as a subrace of gnomes). I think most of it comes down to their chaotic nature which rubs many other players up the wrong way as a lot of Kender players turn up the chaos to 11.

The problem with Kenders isn't that they're chaotic, it's that they're annoying, have a compulsion to do something that is considered a no-no for many players, and the authors pretended they were Perfect(TM) in spite of that. They were presented as unable to stop themselves from stealing from everyone, but it was supposed to be ok because they were Innocent and Quirky.

[KorvinStarmast]

this has made me ask myself what makes some options stick and others not.

Depends on the playing audience.

Each time they start over with a new edition, they are replacing dozens of books with just a few. Some content will not (yet) be included.

Kind of like a medically administered enema to the bowels of the game.

By contrast, men (eventually re-named humans), dwarves, elves, and hobbits (eventually re-named halflings) have been in D&D since the first three-pamphlet edition, because players who had never seen D&D wanted to play them.

And, sadly, EGG gave in to the temptation to put hobbits into the original game.

While a lot of content has been invented just for D&D, playing in fantasy worlds like the ones we've read has always been a major draw for a lot of people.

Looks like you hit the bullseye with that one.

D&D has a long history of throwing subraces at a wall and seeing which random features stick.

Tieflings didn't always have horns. The drow as PCs was an unfortunate mistake, but let's give RA Salvatore credit: he made it stick.

The Kender are an example of a non-sticky subrace (treating them as a subrace of gnomes). I think most of it comes down to their chaotic nature which rubs many other players up the wrong way as a lot of Kender players turn up the chaos to 11.

Honestly, there isn't a need for subraces.

The problem with Kenders isn't that they're chaotic, it's that they're annoying, have a compulsion to do something that is considered a no-no for many players, and the authors pretended they were Perfect(TM) in spite of that. They were presented as unable to stop themselves from stealing from everyone, but it was supposed to be ok because they were Innocent and Quirky.

And that they are the product of bad writing/creating by Weiss and Hickman - which is too bad since a lot of what they did with Dragonlance I liked.
(I'll not go into my usual rant about Kender...)

[Catullus64]

Each time they start over with a new edition, they are replacing dozens of books with just a few. Some content will not (yet) be included.

Any race that was invented for a specific edition of D&D involves a choice – do we update it to the new edition, or leave it where it is?

By contrast, men (eventually re-named humans), dwarves, elves, and hobbits (eventually re-named halflings) have been in D&D since the first three-pamphlet edition, because players who had never seen D&D wanted to play them.

When you tell somebody about D&D for the first time, after three sentences, nobody says, “I want to play a half-aasimar,” or “Can I be a tiefling?”

But people do say, “I want to play a hobbit like Bilbo,” or “Can I play a dwarf like Gimli?

Races that have, over the decades, pulled people into playing D&D for the first time are more likely to be included than races that people only learned about by playing D&D.

While the basic principle here seems correct to me, note that the media which first draw people to D&D have shifted. I run games at a shop and see a decent number of new players. Far more people show up who were inspired by video games and actual play series (Baldur's Gate III is often cited) than by fantasy literature, so plenty of people come in wanting to play D&D-specific races. The Lord of the Rings still has enough broad recognition that people understand what an Elf or a Dwarf is, but modern fantasy literature has taken a sharp turn away from fantastical races as a setting trope.

[stormofmind]

Each time they start over with a new edition, they are replacing dozens of books with just a few. Some content will not (yet) be included.

Any race that was invented for a specific edition of D&D involves a choice – do we update it to the new edition, or leave it where it is?

By contrast, men (eventually re-named humans), dwarves, elves, and hobbits (eventually re-named halflings) have been in D&D since the first three-pamphlet edition, because players who had never seen D&D wanted to play them.

When you tell somebody about D&D for the first time, after three sentences, nobody says, “I want to play a half-aasimar,” or “Can I be a tiefling?”

But people do say, “I want to play a hobbit like Bilbo,” or “Can I play a dwarf like Gimli?

Races that have, over the decades, pulled people into playing D&D for the first time are more likely to be included than races that people only learned about by playing D&D.



I'm pretty sure that's the real answer. While a lot of content has been invented just for D&D, playing in fantasy worlds like the ones we've read has always been a major draw for a lot of people.

bilbo and Gimli are not that big any more there like your dad's favourite rock band or something they are still going and deeply foundational but lots of things have since been spawned that have changed things greatly.

[stormofmind]

D&D has a long history of throwing subraces at a wall and seeing which random features stick.
Looking at the two stickiest subraces D&D have produced - Drow and Tieflings I think we can see some commonality.
1 - Visually distinct. Drow by their colouring and Tieflings by their horns.
2 - They both tap into the angsty outsider who is more badass than the normies theme.
3 - They are both, nominally at least, evil-inclined. This allows players to be good guys rejecting their heritage, neutrals struggling with their heritage or evil embracing their heritage.
4 - They are both D&D original creations. I know evil elves and devil spawn aren’t new ideas, but the way they are represented in D&D is distinct.


If you want to generalize a bit further from there, some rules for creating a ‘sticky’ subrace could be:
1- be visually different and appealing.
2- be an outsider. People who play D&D know they’re not mainstream, so have an affinity for outsiders.
3- have some built-in roleplaying hooks, especially as it relates to core rules (good/evil axis)
4- be original, not a reskin of someone else’s IP.


The Kender are an example of a non-sticky subrace (treating them as a subrace of gnomes). I think most of it comes down to their chaotic nature which rubs many other players up the wrong way as a lot of Kender players turn up the chaos to 11.

I sort of want to see a trilogy much like how elves are at this point what with, high, nature and dark flavours as we have not had a solid one of those in a while and I am fairly certain the evil option is slowly going away based on what they did with the drow in 5e or something.
any ideas about how tri options form?

[stormofmind]

While the basic principle here seems correct to me, note that the media which first drew people to D&D have shifted. I run games at a shop and see a decent number of new players. Far more people show up who were inspired by video games and actual play series (Baldur's Gate III is often cited) than by fantasy literature, so plenty of people come in wanting to play D&D-specific races. The Lord of the Rings still has enough broad recognition that people understand what an Elf or a Dwarf is, but modern fantasy literature has taken a sharp turn away from fantastical races as a setting trope.

notice anything that seems to be desired beyond humans or old Tolkien options? it would suggest where the wind is presently blowing

[Xervous]

notice anything that seems to be desired beyond humans or old Tolkien options? it would suggest where the wind is presently blowing

The three most common themes I encounter are (in no particular order), contemporary media emulation, special snowflakes, and horny.

[Millstone85]

I sort of want to see a trilogy much like how elves are at this point what with, high, nature and dark flavours as we have not had a solid one of those in a while

I think that a solid trilogy has been staring us in the face, just begging to be acknowledged as such.

Aasimar, genasi and tiefling are three flavours of planetouched, each fairly popular nowadays, and I believe the new PHB will be weaker for only including the last one.

[Catullus64]

notice anything that seems to be desired beyond humans or old Tolkien options? it would suggest where the wind is presently blowing

Number one, in aggregate, is all the animal-folk options, with Tabaxi being especially common. Tieflings are a close second. I try not to judge too harshly, but there's a certain type, often kids but not always, who like playing Tabaxi as a walking cat meme.

[Xervous]

Number one, in aggregate, is all the animal-folk options, with Tabaxi being especially common. Tieflings are a close second. I try not to judge too harshly, but there's a certain type, often kids but not always, who like playing Tabaxi as a walking cat meme.

I’ve found the lack of lore is the biggest flaw with the animal sorts. Without common ground within or outside D&D they’re functionally little more than a costume. Tieflings benefit greatly from being tied into lore. I may not like what has been done with some particulars recently, but there’s no confusion over where they fit into a setting.

[Jay R]

bilbo and Gimli are not that big any more there like your dad's favourite rock band or something they are still going and deeply foundational but lots of things have since been spawned that have changed things greatly.

That may be true, but it's irrelevant to your original question.

You asked, "[W]hat makes a d&d sub race stick?" You specifically used as an example other races being cut in favor of halflings and dwarves.

Answer:

1.Halflings and dwarves are included today because they have been in every version of D&D, starting with the three boxed pamphlets in 1974.
2. They were included in the three boxed pamphlets in 1974 because of Tolkien's influence.
3. Many people were drawn to D&D specifically to play elves, dwarves and hobbits.

This is all true.

[And by the way, your guess missed by a whole generation. My dad didn't have a favorite rock band. He had a favorite swing band, from the forties. I have a favorite 60s rock band.]

While the basic principle here seems correct to me, note that the media which first draw people to D&D have shifted. I run games at a shop and see a decent number of new players. Far more people show up who were inspired by video games and actual play series (Baldur's Gate III is often cited) than by fantasy literature, so plenty of people come in wanting to play D&D-specific races. The Lord of the Rings still has enough broad recognition that people understand what an Elf or a Dwarf is, but modern fantasy literature has taken a sharp turn away from fantastical races as a setting trope.

Catullus is correct that the media has shifted. It may be true that WotC should change how they decide what races to include in the base game, before all the expansions. But we weren't asked how WotC ought to do it. We were asked, "[W]hat makes a d&d sub race stick?" I suspect that the idea of not including dwarves and halflings wasn't even considered.

If WotC considered whether to include halflings and dwarves, then their decision might be related to the fact that including dwarves and halflings in the OGL is not releasing anything owned outright by WotC, but including the stuff they invented would be. They might have deliberately started with the races that they didn't invent. If I were doing it, I'd start with the basic stuff I intended for the OGL.

One more fact: just because your group doesn't play them, you can't conclude that nobody does. I've played in more games in the last ten years with dwarf PCs (3) or hobbit/halfling PCs (2) than all of drow, tieflings, aasimar, and tabaxi combined (1). I'm running a game right now with a hobbit PC. The player who moved away right before we started had created a dwarf PC. Yes, we're older than you guys. But WotC wants our money, too.

[stormofmind]

The three most common themes I encounter are (in no particular order), contemporary media emulation, special snowflakes, and horny.

are those not also why people played elves?
any idea about any commonalites raised between those ideas what is common shows what might have something left to go with

I think that a solid trilogy has been staring us in the face, just begging to be acknowledged as such.

Aasimar, genasi and tiefling are three flavours of planetouched, each fairly popular nowadays, and I believe the new PHB will be weaker for only including the last one.

the problem is that two have little hooks for people on either side of the screen to work with, elementals have little plot and being the child of goodness does not have much of a clear hook for the ensemble game of dnd Also both lack a clear cool look, say what you want about 4e tiefling but it gave them something sufficiently clear that you can point to most of them fairly easily and sell people on looking sort of evil but not,

Number one, in aggregate, is all the animal-folk options, with Tabaxi being especially common. Tieflings are a close second. I try not to judge too harshly, but there's a certain type, often kids but not always, who like playing Tabaxi as a walking cat meme.

the anthro options have baggage and are hard to work with both from what the animal is like and other media which feature anthro animal people.

[stormofmind]

I’ve found the lack of lore is the biggest flaw with the animal sorts. Without common ground within or outside D&D they’re functionally little more than a costume. Tieflings benefit greatly from being tied into lore. I may not like what has been done with some particulars recently, but there’s no confusion over where they fit into a setting.

the lack of lore or setting that highlights the non-default options is needed to make them work, and making them works get more people to buy books

That may be true, but it's irrelevant to your original question.

You asked, "[W]hat makes a d&d sub race stick?" You specifically used as an example other races being cut in favor of halflings and dwarves.

Answer:

1.Halflings and dwarves are included today because they have been in every version of D&D, starting with the three boxed pamphlets in 1974.
2. They were included in the three boxed pamphlets in 1974 because of Tolkien's influence.
3. Many people were drawn to D&D specifically to play elves, dwarves and hobbits.

This is all true.

[And by the way, your guess missed by a whole generation. My dad didn't have a favorite rock band. He had a favorite swing band, from the forties. I have a favorite 60s rock band.]



Catullus is correct that the media has shifted. It may be true that WotC should change how they decide what races to include in the base game, before all the expansions. But we weren't asked how WotC ought to do it. We were asked, "[W]hat makes a d&d sub race stick?" I suspect that the idea of not including dwarves and halflings wasn't even considered.

If WotC considered whether to include halflings and dwarves, then their decision might be related to the fact that including dwarves and halflings in the OGL is not releasing anything owned outright by WotC, but including the stuff they invented would be. They might have deliberately started with the races that they didn't invent. If I were doing it, I'd start with the basic stuff I intended for the OGL.

One more fact: just because your group doesn't play them, you can't conclude that nobody does. I've played in more games in the last ten years with dwarf PCs (3) or hobbit/halfling PCs (2) than all of drow, tieflings, aasimar, and tabaxi combined (1). I'm running a game right now with a hobbit PC. The player who moved away right before we started had created a dwarf PC. Yes, we're older than you guys. But WotC wants our money, too.

I do not think about people who grew up in the 40's as my only relatives from back then are no longer with us.

my point is not that halflings and dwarves are getting cut more they now only get one version compared to elves who at least get two so what separated the options for dwarves and halflings from elves.
I want to know what seems to make something stick as a second part, why is dwarf seemingly condemned to be nothing but clones?

[KorvinStarmast]

The three most common themes I encounter are (in no particular order), contemporary media emulation, special snowflakes, and horny.

That's a pretty good summary, I think. To add to that, people doing a copy cat of Matt Mercers play group. Seen a bit of that. CR has had an impact.

I’ve found the lack of lore is the biggest flaw with the animal sorts. Without common ground within or outside D&D they’re functionally little more than a costume.

Yes, there's more but I won't go there. My own dislike for D&D animal races is based in getting sick of the cat people in space trope during the 80's. (I read a lot of SF while at sea, to include various FR novels). CJ Cherryh had these cat people in a bunch of books and it just turned me off. When tabaxi showed up, I had an averse reaction.
The aarkocra is almost palatable.
The Kenku are awful. (At least in D&D 5e). It might have been an interesting idea at one point, but the implementation was a failure.

Tieflings benefit greatly from being tied into lore. I may not like what has been done with some particulars recently, but there’s no confusion over where they fit into a setting.

Yes, and I seem to recall that they fit into Planescape pretty well. I prefer Tieflings without the aesthetical mess that is the current horns and tail nonsense. (I guess we can blame 4e for that?). Having a bloodline to a fiend or a demon can be far more subtle and still be quite effective, in terms of lore/world building.
A problem with elves is that Tolkien had his taxonomy of elves and I think that led to the 'sub race' of elves thing. (Can't prove it, but that's my suspicion).

[And by the way, your guess missed by a whole generation. My dad didn't have a favorite rock band. He had a favorite swing band, from the forties. I have a favorite 60s rock band.]

My dad's fave is John Coltrane. Jazz is Mom and Dad's thing. (They went to college in the late 40's / early 50's.)

One more fact: just because your group doesn't play them, you can't conclude that nobody does.

True. My days of playing halflings are long gone. (I kind of over did it in OD&D and AD&D 1e). I'll still play a dwarf here and there (have a celestial warlock dwarf at present)

the anthro options have baggage and are hard to work with both from what the animal is like and other media which feature anthro animal people.

Yes.

I do not think about people who grew up in the 40's as my only relatives from back then are no longer with us.

My dad was born before the great depression started. He's still alive. Then again, he never played D&D, but he didn't stop us from playing it.

I want to know what seems to make something stick as a second part, why is dwarf seemingly condemned to be nothing but clones?

Lack of imagination on the part of players, perhaps?

[Psyren]

I think the key question for most subraces is "does it still make sense to mechanically represent this". Unlike races which are more or less an objective *thing* in the game world subraces tend to not draw such a hard line and are arguably a different culture as opposed to a different bloodline a lot of the time. Like I'm not a Tolkien scholar or anything but I'm not sure he considered Legolas and Lady whatsername to be distinct on a genetic level or anything like that.

So I guess since the main distinction between the halfling and dwarf subraces were their ability scores they were folded in since there wasn't a role for them to play in the mechanics anymore.

Adding to this - the starting feat we're getting in 5.5e means you have another way to represent the cultural/regional differentiators as well, such as Mountain Dwarves' armor training (Lightly Armored) or Hill Dwarves' hardiness (Tough).

While the basic principle here seems correct to me, note that the media which first draw people to D&D have shifted. I run games at a shop and see a decent number of new players. Far more people show up who were inspired by video games and actual play series (Baldur's Gate III is often cited) than by fantasy literature, so plenty of people come in wanting to play D&D-specific races. The Lord of the Rings still has enough broad recognition that people understand what an Elf or a Dwarf is, but modern fantasy literature has taken a sharp turn away from fantastical races as a setting trope.

bilbo and Gimli are not that big any more there like your dad's favourite rock band or something they are still going and deeply foundational but lots of things have since been spawned that have changed things greatly.

notice anything that seems to be desired beyond humans or old Tolkien options? it would suggest where the wind is presently blowing

Indeed; we've already seen Tieflings and Dragonborn start to eclipse Dwarves and Halflings in popularity (and we had a whole thread on the subject not too long ago too.)

The three most common themes I encounter are (in no particular order), contemporary media emulation, special snowflakes, and horny.

"Contemporary Media Emulation" just means "cultural evolution."
And increasingly - the folks who want to be gnomes and hobbits are becoming the "special snowflakes" I'd say.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Lack of imagination on the part of players, perhaps?

In terms of subraces -- dwarves have a more unified, coherent concept through the classic building blocks of D&D fantasy than elves. Thorin is a smith who wants to reclaim his underground kingdom. Flint is a smith who wants to one day return to his people and -- big twist! -- hates the dwarves in the underground kingdom. Breunor is a smith who wants to reclaim his underground kingdom. Gimli's not a smith explicitly, but what does he do after the War of the Ring? Goes and forms his own underground kingdom. In game terms, they're all male fighters, probably with beards. Even Doli from The Chronicles of Prydain is basically dwarfy -- he stumps along and has an axe and is grumpy, even though he's from a more fae tradition than most depictions of dwarves. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 have dwarves! There are two in Baldur's Gate 1. They're both male fighters with beards. There's one in Baldur's Gate 2; he's a male fighter with a beard. Neverwinter Nights 2? Male fighter, beard. I don't blame players for having a lack of imagination! The only female dwarf I can think of offhand pre-Rings of Power is Morgalla from Elaine Cunningham's novel Elfsong; she's a female dwarf who, in game terms, is... probably a fighter, though she'd be a good table character with a nice mixture of offbeat, unique characteristics with recognizably dwarfy ones. (There's also Terry Pratchett's female dwarves, though they exist largely to poke fun at the male-dwarf trope; dwarves didn't have the concept of 'female' until meeting humans.)

It's tough to stay true to those roots while creating enough differentiation for a separate subspecies. The one that's stuck is duergar, which are mostly just Dwarf But Evil. I've always kind of enjoyed the Shannara version of dwarves and have used them in a game or two. But they're not something that fits as a catch-all subspecies. I wonder too if some of the problem is that gnomes take up too much conceptual space. They're small tricksters who do illusion magic and talk to animals but also are tinkers and inventors and mad scientists. They live in forests and glades but also underground or really anywhere. They infringe on potential design space for both dwarves and halflings. 5E rock gnomes could easily be dwarves, and 5E forest gnomes could easily be halflings.

Another issue, which people have brought up before, is that in terms of fictional identity dwarves are tied to money and crafts. Money is regulated by the D&D rules. You can't really have a dwarf subrace like Skyrim's Imperial humans, who find extra money all over. Crafting rules are... not great and not easy to apply, which stinks, because a subrace that could craft impromptu problem-solving devices (a simple way to lock a door, or throw together a functional bridge, or whatever) with scrap metal or spare stone would get a lot of play, I think. And it'd lend itself to another subrace that used wood or plants. I'd also like to lean into the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes sidebar about dwarven relationship with alcohol -- dwarves drink to tap into their memories, and it'd be interesting to have mechanics that allowed a dwarf to tap into the memories of their ancestors too, as sort of a vision quest. That'd be something that could happen at the subrace level that could get some play as well, and might be the kind of thing that drew players towards playing seers and priests and away from fighters and berserkers.

[KorvinStarmast]

In terms of subraces -- dwarves have a more unified, coherent concept through the classic building blocks of D&D fantasy than elves.

Better the LotR and BG versions than seven little old men hanging around with a teenaged gal ...

Also, glad you did not mention the abomination that was gully dwarves in Dragonlance.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Better the LotR and BG versions than seven little old men hanging around with a teenaged gal ...

Also, glad you did not mention the abomination that was gully dwarves in Dragonlance.

They were an attempt! But 'very stupid, pretty much useless except by accident' is not a concept destined for great enthusiasm and uptake.

[Jay R]

Better the LotR and BG versions than seven little old men hanging around with a teenaged gal ...

I once had a PC with two henchmen -- dwarves named Felix and Doli, who were out to get revenge on the dragon who had killed their five brothers.

You had to think in more than one language to recognize that the names "Felix" and "Doli" meant "Happy" and "Grumpy".

[Metastachydium]

The Kenku are awful. (At least in D&D 5e). It might have been an interesting idea at one point, but the implementation was a failure.

They were very good in 3.5. Mechanically, they felt like actual crows: play- and resourcefully clever (with their Mimicry ability), but insanely good at teamwork (+3 to Aid Anothers, +4 to flanking), as well as purpose-designed to rock and roll as Rogues (in addition to the superior flanking, they came with a DEX bonus and two 1d3 claw attacks for free, no penalty Two-Weapon Fighting from the get-go), and work well as stuff like Beguilers (a good thematic fit).

[RANT YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD BEFORE]Sadly, the 3.5 Kenku is, nevertheless, one of the reasons why I came to believe that official WotC lore is garbage that shoul BURN. They made something cool and cute that, once more, actually is a lot like what a bipedal HUmanoid crow would be like. And what did they come up as fluff for them? "Kenkus are all useless, fodder-level lowlife criminals who can't build cohesive societies of their own and so parasitize those of other races, but despite that, still have a racial language." **** you, WotC. Just… **** you.

When I learned that the original 5e version was also cursed and couldn't even speak but was, rather, forced to communicate in undiluted cringe clownery that I imagine hit their appeal in live games hard outside silly one-shots… I wanted to kick so many faces.[/RANT YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD BEFORE]

[KorvinStarmast]

They were very good in 3.5. Mechanically, they felt like actual crows: play- and resourcefully clever (with their Mimicry ability), but insanely good at teamwork (+3 to Aid Anothers, +4 to flanking), as well as purpose-designed to rock and roll as Rogues (in addition to the superior flanking, they came with a DEX bonus and two 1d3 claw attacks for free, no penalty Two-Weapon Fighting from the get-go), and work well as stuff like Beguilers (a good thematic fit).

Spoiler: rant, which I appreciate the emotion behind

Show

[RANT YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD BEFORE]Sadly, the 3.5 Kenku is, nevertheless, one of the reasons why I came to believe that official WotC lore is garbage that shoul BURN. They made something cool and cute that, once more, actually is a lot like what a bipedal HUmanoid crow would be like. And what did they come up as fluff for them? "Kenkus are all useless, fodder-level lowlife criminals who can't build cohesive societies of their own and so parasitize those of other races, but despite that, still have a racial language." **** you, WotC. Just… **** you.

When I learned that the original 5e version was also cursed and couldn't even speak but was, rather, forced to communicate in undiluted cringe clownery that I imagine hit their appeal in live games hard outside silly one-shots… I wanted to kick so many faces.[/RANT YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD BEFORE]

What a shame that they boned it. (Darnit, Roy will be so upset with me, I used bone as a verb).

[Anonymouswizard]

When you tell somebody about D&D for the first time, after three sentences, nobody says, “I want to play a half-aasimar,” or “Can I be a tiefling?”

But people do say, “I want to play a hobbit like Bilbo,” or “Can I play a dwarf like Gimli?

My experience has pretty much been the opposite. Nobody wants to play a boring dwarf, they all want to be the hot devil lady (or elf).

In fact I'd say hotness is a big factor in race selection for the modern player, with only animal people rivalling them.

The problem with Kenders isn't that they're chaotic, it's that they're annoying, have a compulsion to do something that is considered a no-no for many players, and the authors pretended they were Perfect(TM) in spite of that. They were presented as unable to stop themselves from stealing from everyone, but it was supposed to be ok because they were Innocent and Quirky.

Kenders are fine (not great, but bearable) if they're stealing interesting but worthless trinkets or just being a gladly. I haven't read the Dragonlance novels, but my understanding is that Tas worked because he never stole anything too important and gave back anything actually important to it's owner (sometimes before being asked to).

The issue is when that jerk steals the Paladin's sword and hides behind 'it's in character'. Steal their wedding ring to have a look at it and give it back when called out

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Kenders are fine (not great, but bearable) if they're stealing interesting but worthless trinkets or just being a gladly. I haven't read the Dragonlance novels, but my understanding is that Tas worked because he never stole anything too important and gave back anything actually important to it's owner (sometimes before being asked to).

The issue is when that jerk steals the Paladin's sword and hides behind 'it's in character'. Steal their wedding ring to have a look at it and give it back when called out

Kender get a bad rap and it's equally the fault of DMs and players, and the root of it is right there: steal. There's a certain kind of player who plays as a kender so they can steal from the party, either for personal gain in-character or to cause problems or drama at the table. But kender don't steal things; they borrow them, or find them, or just happen to pick them up for safekeeping, or make a valuable trade, and they lose things just as often as they gain them. It's an important distinction to make at the table because it means the kender player/character shouldn't be resistant to giving everything back instantly. A classically-played kender should barely even make the decisions about what they happen to acquire, even. A particularly shiny but worthless rock or a little fragment of robin's egg should be just as enticing as a big bag of money. A player who's taking important pieces of equipment or plot items away from his party members isn't being true to the spirit of the endeavor. A player whose character sheet is loaded with random junk -- a green marble, a blue jay's feather, a beaver's tooth, one of Bilbo Baggins's prized silver spoons -- and whose acquisitions are in that direction is, I think, operating more as the race was intended to be played and probably isn't causing problems at the table. (And, of course, it's easier to acquire trinkets and junk when trinkets and junk exist in the world and on your teammates' character sheets. DMs prepping for kender players should have a pretty expansive pocket-junk table.)

The other piece of it is that the DM has a responsibility to manage things at the table. A lot of that, of course, is dealing with out-of-character stuff out-of-character. But kender acquisitiveness is a double-edged sword. The DM shouldn't be allowing a kender player to acquire stuff from his teammates but not from NPCs. If there's, like, a key to a set of shackles and it's unattended within reach of the kender for even one second, it should be in the kender's pocket ready to be used. When I've seen kender get really annoying at the table, the DM tends to be permissive of the player stealing from the party but restrictive when the player tries to acquire objects in the world. The kender should have a pretty frickin' hard time taking the paladin's sword; it's two feet taller than he is.

In the novels, Tas (when he's a character and not a walking plot device, as he becomes in later books) is basically a property vortex. He acquires things and he loses them equally. Whenever he's told to return something, he does so promptly and cheerfully. He's easily distracted -- Raistlin starts putting sparkly things in his spell component pouch so Tas will take the pouch, pull out the beetle or crystal and drop the pouch. If it doesn't fit easily in a pocket or a pouch, he's not interested, and he has no concept of value. A bit of glass is just as interesting as a diamond. He often has something helpful in his collection of pouches, whether a map or a key or a trinket that just happens to be what's needed at the time, and he's good at finding things his teammates need. He'd fit fine at a table because he's not played maliciously and he's a valuable contributor to the party's success.

[KorvinStarmast]

Kender get a bad rap

Disagree. The bad rap is well deserved. They were badly conceptualized and badly written in the original fiction. When the DL novels first came out, I quite enjoyed them. (Although the gully dwarves were a tone spoiler). I also liked the first Twins trilogy. But even in Autumn Twilight Tass leaped off the page as a bad fit. It was an attempt to shoehorn Tolkien's hobbits into the world building with none of what made the hobbits a connecting device for the reader. Granted, the fact that people played hobbits, elves, half elves, and dwarves in D&D and AD&D, and they were trying to bring game adventures to life via the novels, was behind this. The transition didn't work. What transition? From reluctant burglar to kleptomaniac - this is a core concept problem.

In the novels, Tas (when he's a character and not a walking plot device, as he becomes in later books) is basically a property vortex.

And there you go, two separate issues with the original fiction. (But that's not all).