Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[Boci]

The first one isn't a problem. Elves are insanely popular, and that's with them frequently just being humans with pointy ears. The second one, yeah that kind of is.

But elves are PRETTY humans with pointy ears. That's an important detail.

[JusticeZero]

I mean, there are a LOT of races in D&D. A lot. Oodles. Just pick and choose what works for your worldbuilding. You can omit a lot of races, yes, even core races, when doing your world design. Yes, even humans if it works for you.
The same with classes.
You have a very large palette to work with. You don't need to use all of them. You don't even have to use the ones that came in the core, and indeed... you probably shouldn't. Not because they're bad, but because there's just so much material to work with.

[Mordar]

in essence, it is pure aesthetic they look like short guys with beards they are both too easy to overlook as short humans and lack anything striking to really sell them.

teifling in 5e at a glance looks sticking now I myself am not really into what it sells but it has a clear look to sell you on.

dwarves lack things that make them different and are considered both striking and cool.

being short is an aesthetic detriment in some people's eyes.

thus I propose if we remedy this without losing the core of dwarves we make selling people on them easier then is it just a cultural option problem hence the other half of my point.

Massive, broad chested, rugged beings with wonderfully ornate armor and weapons. Woven, braided and flowing hair. Runes, sigils, woad...all things that differentiate them from the short, fat neckbeard aesthetic. These aren't halflings! I understand what you're saying. So we just need to make sure the images are less Gimli and slice-of-life dwarves and more GW dwarves, or fighting-video-game style dwarves.

4'8" in all directions with a cartoonishly large axe and Liefield-esque armor screams bad-a$$.

- M

[Errorname]

Rugged beings with ornate armor and weapons. Woven, braided and flowing hair. Runes, sigils, woad

For the record I literally just rolled up a BG3 Half-Elf who's doing all of this, none of this is exclusively the purview of dwarves. Not massive or broad chested, admittedly, but that's because Elf, if I'd gone with a Human or Half-Orc I easily could have.

These aren't halflings!

The problem is that they kind of are? Or rather that the differences between them aren't physical, they're cultural. A Halfling who grows out their beard and trains with heavy weapons and armour is going to feel like a Dwarf, a Dwarf who shaves and does sneaky rogue stuff is going to feel like a Halfling.

[Psyren]

I can see a logic to making it so not all options are in each setting even things as core as elves dwarves and halflings but that is another topic.

To be fair, they're already doing that - for example, Ravnica doesn't have dwarves minus the odd multiversal interloper, and Theros is missing dwarves AND elves.

dwarves basically have two problems they look dull and have no variety to them both character and culture.

now the first I only have minor ideas on how to solve such as giving them metallic coloured skin.

So... Azers?

the second I think is likely to make multiple varieties of dwarves in a single setting who remove some elements of them and really focus on one area of the dwarven idea along with one classic version for balance maybe an evil one if a decent idea of what total evil dwarves would be?

A lot of Duergar are pretty much what evil, well, ruthless/opportunistic dwarves would be like.

For the record I literally just rolled up a BG3 Half-Elf who's doing all of this, none of this is exclusively the purview of dwarves. Not massive or broad chested, admittedly, but that's because Elf, if I'd gone with a Human or Half-Orc I easily could have.

Yeah, the new core is going to have lots of options for broad-chested characters besides Dwarves - Orcs, Goliaths, Dragonborn, Humans, Tieflings, and half-versions of all of these.

[OldTrees1]

For the record I literally just rolled up a BG3 Half-Elf who's doing all of this, none of this is exclusively the purview of dwarves. Not massive or broad chested, admittedly, but that's because Elf, if I'd gone with a Human or Half-Orc I easily could have.

The problem is that they kind of are? Or rather that the differences between them aren't physical, they're cultural. A Halfling who grows out their beard and trains with heavy weapons and armour is going to feel like a Dwarf, a Dwarf who shaves and does sneaky rogue stuff is going to feel like a Halfling.

You are right, but this could be addressed if dwarf mechanics dipped into the "natural connection with stones" themes D&D dwarves get. In the past dwarf warriors have been allowed to reshape the rocky battlefield. How much of that is cultural vs physical depends on how you interpret the dwarf's connection with stones. Are they a human that likes rocks, or are they kin to the earth.

For example a dwarf rogue could have very very very minor earthbending.
A: Stone yielding to their touch like firm clay to ours.
B: 5ft tremor sense.
But instead dwarf species mechanics give cultural features like weapon proficiency.

[Errorname]

You are right, but this could be addressed if dwarf mechanics dipped into the "natural connection with stones" themes D&D dwarves get. In the past dwarf warriors have been allowed to reshape the rocky battlefield. How much of that is cultural vs physical depends on how you interpret the dwarf's connection with stones. Are they a human that likes rocks, or are they kin to the earth.

But instead dwarf species mechanics give cultural features like weapon proficiency.

I think that's just part of how the fantasy Dwarf has evolved. They aren't spirits of the earth anymore, they're short dudes who have big beards, big axes and big livers. I don't actually know if you could give D&D Dwarves inherent earthbending powers and have it feel right.

If you were making your own setting, I think you could go back to the source and build out something different and new, but it wouldn't feel like a dwarf to people. Like if you built a fantasy setting and you leaned into the idea of Dwarves as creatures of earth and stone, and the theory that "Svartálfar/Dark Elves" in Norse Myth might be meant to be dwarves, I don't think people would recognize them as Dwarves. I realized while writing this that this might not even be a hypothetical either, I'm starting to think this was the thought process behind the Dredge from Banner Saga, and even though they're a subterranean race with a gift for shaping stone whose women have big stone mustaches I've never seen anyone make that connection, although admittedly Dredge draw a lot on the Jotnar as well, including being quite large, which makes any Dwarven influence easier to miss.

Maybe a better example would be Elder Scrolls, because while the Dredge = Dwarf connection is kind of a stretch and even if true requires a few asterisks, the Dwemer = Dwarf connection is undeniable. Dwemer are a cool take on Dwarves, and they're a pretty reasonable interpretation of the folkloric version into the Elder Scrolls setting that is a very stark departure from the stock Tolkienesque Dwarf. They're cool and they work really well in the context of the Elder Scrolls and they're very memorably distinct from the stock Dwarf, but also nobody would be happy if the next edition changed D&D Dwarves to be more like the Dwemer.

Ultimately people do like the classic fantasy Dwarf. It may not be as popular as it was in the past, but I don't think if in the next player handbook they radically changed what a Dwarf looked like it or gave them brand new poers, I don't think it would make anyone happy. It's sort of a limited archetype, but in the context of D&D I don't think it needs to be fixed.

[Cluedrew]

For the record I literally just rolled up a BG3 Half-Elf who's doing all of this, none of this is exclusively the purview of dwarves. Not massive or broad chested, admittedly, but that's because Elf, if I'd gone with a Human or Half-Orc I easily could have.

Of course you could, because all races in D&D are humans with sufficiently bumpy foreheads.

Which is actually why I like that "the dwarf" is a strongly defined image, because that that is why I would actually use the fantasy race, for a strong image as a base (then spice as appropriate for the story). If I want something nice and open ended, I'd just use humans.

[Witty Username]

The problem is that they kind of are? Or rather that the differences between them aren't physical, they're cultural. A Halfling who grows out their beard and trains with heavy weapons and armour is going to feel like a Dwarf, a Dwarf who shaves and does sneaky rogue stuff is going to feel like a Halfling.

I am going to press X to Doubt on this one. Varric from Dragon Age is pretty close to this but his vibe feels off for halfling.

Most differences between species in D&D are cultural. Just about all of them fit into human ranges and the natural variation in them will lead to similar indistinctions. In the one D&D material a medium sized halfling and small sized human are both doable.

[LibraryOgre]

4'8" in all directions with a cartoonishly large axe and Liefield-esque armor screams bad-a$$.

Liefeld-esque? Totally inaccurate. They have visible feet and no pockets.

The stereotypical dwarf is very masc-presenting... beards, big hands, strong arms. I have to wonder if part of the declining popularity of dwarves doesn't tie back to the broadening of the fanbase. The stereotypical gamer of the 70s-80s looked like a dwarf, or wanted to when they grew up. Heck, I'm one of those guys, and I still kinda dream about being able to braid my beard. However, since the mid-90s, especially, the population of RPG-players has broadened, and it broadened again with 3.x, and again with 5e. The percentage of gamers for whom the traditionally masc dwarf was aspirational reduced... even if you had 100 players who wanted to look like a dwarf in 1974 and 2024, in 1974 that was 100 out of 1000, instead of 100 out of 10,000.

[Errorname]

Of course you could, because all races in D&D are humans with sufficiently bumpy foreheads.

Which is actually why I like that "the dwarf" is a strongly defined image, because that that is why I would actually use the fantasy race, for a strong image as a base (then spice as appropriate for the story). If I want something nice and open ended, I'd just use humans.

I would argue that the 'problem' with Dwarves is that they have insufficiently bumpy foreheads, they're so close to human that they're extremely reliant on the stock Dwarf traits to make them feel like themselves.

I am going to press X to Doubt on this one. Varric from Dragon Age is pretty close to this but his vibe feels off for halfling.

I don't fully disagree, but I do think that in a D&D context with a completely unchanged design he could easily pass muster as a Halfling.

[Slipjig]

Size is an important difference there. I think a lot of people don't realize exactly how short 3' is. An average kindergartener in the US is 3'6". Especially since they are now mostly skinny (instead of fat hobbits), halfings are tiny. That's short enough that most doorknobs are above their eye level. In a modern human home, they couldn't reach most lightswitches without jumping. That's short enough to run between a tall human's legs WITHOUT DUCKING.

Dwarves are short, but not THAT short.

On a side note, what do people think of the new "Any race can be any height" thing? I know that in the new edition you can play 7' halfings and 3' humans, but is anybody actually planning on doing that? Especially for the races where their small size is one of their defining features.

[Errorname]

On a side note, what do people think of the new "Any race can be any height" thing? I know that in the new edition you can play 7' halfings and 3' humans, but is anybody actually planning on doing that? Especially for the races where their small size is one of their defining features.

I don't think it's unreasonable? Extreme outliers exist and it's not uncommon to base characters around that stuff. It only becomes a problem for races like Halflings and Dwarves where "What if Human but Short" is all they've got going for them.

[Metastachydium]

I can see a logic to making it so not all options are in each setting even things as core as elves dwarves and halflings but that is another topic.

dwarves basically have two problems they look dull and have no variety to them both character and culture.

now the first I only have minor ideas on how to solve such as giving them metallic coloured skin.


the second I think is likely to make multiple varieties of dwarves in a single setting who remove some elements of them and really focus on one area of the dwarven idea along with one classic version for balance maybe an evil one if a decent idea of what total evil dwarves would be?

in essence, it is pure aesthetic they look like short guys with beards they are both too easy to overlook as short humans and lack anything striking to really sell them.

teifling in 5e at a glance looks sticking now I myself am not really into what it sells but it has a clear look to sell you on.

dwarves lack things that make them different and are considered both striking and cool.

being short is an aesthetic detriment in some people's eyes.

thus I propose if we remedy this without losing the core of dwarves we make selling people on them easier then is it just a cultural option problem hence the other half of my point.

I think it's fair to say stock Dwarf does not exist outside the bounds of natural human variation, and for a fantastical non-human sentient species that is kind of dull, if you wanted to play Gimli or Varric in a historical setting as just a human, you could easily do that.

(…)

It's really the 'dwarves are one note' and 'the fantasy dwarves fulfill isn't that popular right now'

The problem is that they kind of are? Or rather that the differences between them aren't physical, they're cultural. A Halfling who grows out their beard and trains with heavy weapons and armour is going to feel like a Dwarf, a Dwarf who shaves and does sneaky rogue stuff is going to feel like a Halfling.

Yeah, the new core is going to have lots of options for broad-chested characters besides Dwarves - Orcs, Goliaths, Dragonborn, Humans, Tieflings, and half-versions of all of these.

You are right, but this could be addressed if dwarf mechanics dipped into the "natural connection with stones" themes D&D dwarves get. In the past dwarf warriors have been allowed to reshape the rocky battlefield. How much of that is cultural vs physical depends on how you interpret the dwarf's connection with stones. Are they a human that likes rocks, or are they kin to the earth.

For example a dwarf rogue could have very very very minor earthbending.
A: Stone yielding to their touch like firm clay to ours.
B: 5ft tremor sense.
But instead dwarf species mechanics give cultural features like weapon proficiency.

(The above are merely some relevant posts snatched for context.)

Two things:
1. racial monocultures are stupid and their face is stupid; "Dwarven culture is boring" is a self-imposed problem;

2. if one uses 5e's "all should deliberately made pretty much the same with maybe cosmetic differences" design philosophy as a benchmark, everything without a hideously overdone rubber forehead will look the same as everything else, but that's not a Dwarves problem; that's a 5e problem. Meanwhile in 3.5, we have:
–Hill/Deep/Mountain/Gold Dwarves, the Dwarves as you know them;
–Duergar, industrious and Lawful, but far less hairy, stealthy, magical and more sinister Dwarves;
–Badland Dwarves, adapted to a desert habitat and mining for water (and having innate Watersense for that), creating logistical hubs for travellers;
–Dream Dwarves, contemplative Dwarves so in tune with earth that they can tap into a shared subconscious mediated through it, the "earth dream" that lets them see into the spirit world;
–Arctic Dwarves, cold-adapted, semi-barbaric survivalists, Small in size but strong as an Orc;
–Urdunnirs, grey-skinned, silver-eyed Dwarves with high-powered magic, able to Stone Shape at-will and walk through stone and metal as though it were water;
–Wild Dwarves, Small but broad forest-dwellers, sneaky, but durable as a true Dwarf and supremely capable at weathering and using poison (and disease);
–Fireblodd Dwarves, volcanic Dwarves formerly enslaved by Red Dragons, resistant to heat and fire and born with the skill to battle Dragons;
–Ice Dwarves, former Duergar that resided with and served Frost Giants on a frigid outer plane and were shaped by it;
–Midgard Dwarves, shaped like and possessing the temperament of Dwarves, but in truth, strange Outsiders and the ultimate craftspeople, capable of creating just about any magic item…

And the list goes on.

[Psyren]

(The above are merely some relevant posts snatched for context.)

Two things:
1. racial monocultures are stupid and their face is stupid; "Dwarven culture is boring" is a self-imposed problem;

You're correct that it's self-imposed - but there's still an interesting question as to why the devs have felt the need to impose it on themselves this long. Or perhaps more accurately, why the playerbase's expectations for the expression of "dwarf" has imposed it on them.

2. if one uses 5e's "all should deliberately made pretty much the same with maybe cosmetic differences" design philosophy as a benchmark, everything without a hideously overdone rubber forehead will look the same as everything else, but that's not a Dwarves problem; that's a 5e problem.

As per usual, genuinely holding this belief requires either ignorance or willful disregard of the actual mechanical features of 5e species. They are not just cosmetically different, not by a longshot.

Meanwhile in 3.5, we have:
–Hill/Deep/Mountain/Gold Dwarves, the Dwarves as you know them;
–Duergar, industrious and Lawful, but far less hairy, stealthy, magical and more sinister Dwarves;
–Badland Dwarves, adapted to a desert habitat and mining for water (and having innate Watersense for that), creating logistical hubs for travellers;
–Dream Dwarves, contemplative Dwarves so in tune with earth that they can tap into a shared subconscious mediated through it, the "earth dream" that lets them see into the spirit world;
–Arctic Dwarves, cold-adapted, semi-barbaric survivalists, Small in size but strong as an Orc;
–Urdunnirs, grey-skinned, silver-eyed Dwarves with high-powered magic, able to Stone Shape at-will and walk through stone and metal as though it were water;
–Wild Dwarves, Small but broad forest-dwellers, sneaky, but durable as a true Dwarf and supremely capable at weathering and using poison (and disease);
–Fireblodd Dwarves, volcanic Dwarves formerly enslaved by Red Dragons, resistant to heat and fire and born with the skill to battle Dragons;
–Ice Dwarves, former Duergar that resided with and served Frost Giants on a frigid outer plane and were shaped by it;
–Midgard Dwarves, shaped like and possessing the temperament of Dwarves, but in truth, strange Outsiders and the ultimate craftspeople, capable of creating just about any magic item…

And the list goes on.

Aren't several of these monsters, i.e. Dwarves in name only? The OP is very clear that they're talking about Dwarf PCs. Midgard Dwarves and Urdunnir for example are well above the CR expected to be playable in most campaigns.

If you're throwing "dwarf-shaped monsters" into the mix then every edition can have a lot of dwarven variety.

[Eldan]

There's no reason you couldn't just use the fluff and make a lower-level statblock.

[Psyren]

There's no reason you couldn't just use the fluff and make a lower-level statblock.

How do you "refluff" things like walking through walls and creating any magic item to be suitable for PCs?

[Metastachydium]

You're correct that it's self-imposed - but there's still an interesting question as to why the devs have felt the need to impose it on themselves this long. Or perhaps more accurately, why the playerbase's expectations for the expression of "dwarf" has imposed it on them.

What do you think that reason is? I doubt it is specific to Dwarves, at any rate, seeing how "racial monoculture" is the default assumption of the developers for literally anything barring Humans.

As per usual, genuinely holding this belief requires either ignorance or willful disregard of the actual mechanical features of 5e species. They are not just cosmetically different, not by a longshot.

I'm being hyperbolic of course, but yes, I do genuinely believe 5e's basic philosophy of balancing things far better than the crazy mess what was 3.5 resulted in a serious loss in terms of variation.

Aren't several of these monsters, i.e. Dwarves in name only? The OP is very clear that they're talking about Dwarf PCs. Midgard Dwarves and Urdunnir for example are well above the CR expected to be playable in most campaigns.

If you're throwing "dwarf-shaped monsters" into the mix then every edition can have a lot of dwarven variety.

No, I'm not. For starters, that's not how 3.5 works. The very strict race/monster distinction is a later development. Further, all I listed is officially playable, by WotC's own recommendation, and the only two outliers as far as starting ECL (CR-based "races as monsters" is A PF1 thing) is concerned are the Midgard Dwarf at ECL 12 (8 RHD/LA +4) and the Urdunnir at ECL 5 (LA +4), and both of those worked hard for that distinction. The rest has a fes items at LA +1 or +2, but in a 3.5 context, that's nothing much.

EDIT: Oh, and the Urdunnir is labeled as a race, rather than a monster. It is primarily meant or at least considered suitable for player use.

[JusticeZero]

I mean yes, this is a HUGE issue with races. Strip the culture from a race and look at just the stat block. Does that stat block have a place? Is the stat block going to kneecap people thinking outside of the stereotype and thus possibly need a revision that further dilutes the stat block? Is that NEW stat block sufficiently unique to earn a place in the campaign?

I would argue that MOST races fall apart in that process somewhere, and "core" races shouldn't be exempt from the culling and refining stage.

You can have an extremely diverse world with one (1) race in it, where the different cultures are very different to the point that they are MORE distinct than the "core" races are from each other. It's not even hard.

The core races are basically just rubber stamping a certain relationship between a couple of nations that really haven't shown a big need for actual species traits; "proficiency with longbows" is a cultural trait and has no business being treated as genetic, it's more a trait of "people raised in a certain city". It starts to feel more like "No matter what world you make, it has to include Ireland, London, and France, and they have to be stereotypical as heck."

Dwarves' racial thing is the resistance to toxins and whatnot and their culture doesn't highlight it; if a city of dwarves was born without it, arguably nobody would really have reason to notice. They get radically different cultures with different settings and just... why do they earn a place on the map? Why do elves? Why can't you work from the level of building your cultures first, then slotting races in as fit best rather than the other way around?

[Errorname]

if one uses 5e's "all should deliberately made pretty much the same with maybe cosmetic differences" design philosophy as a benchmark, everything without a hideously overdone rubber forehead will look the same as everything else, but that's not a Dwarves problem; that's a 5e problem. Meanwhile in 3.5, we have:
–Hill/Deep/Mountain/Gold Dwarves, the Dwarves as you know them;
–Duergar, industrious and Lawful, but far less hairy, stealthy, magical and more sinister Dwarves;
–Badland Dwarves, adapted to a desert habitat and mining for water (and having innate Watersense for that), creating logistical hubs for travellers;
–Dream Dwarves, contemplative Dwarves so in tune with earth that they can tap into a shared subconscious mediated through it, the "earth dream" that lets them see into the spirit world;
–Arctic Dwarves, cold-adapted, semi-barbaric survivalists, Small in size but strong as an Orc;
–Urdunnirs, grey-skinned, silver-eyed Dwarves with high-powered magic, able to Stone Shape at-will and walk through stone and metal as though it were water;
–Wild Dwarves, Small but broad forest-dwellers, sneaky, but durable as a true Dwarf and supremely capable at weathering and using poison (and disease);
–Fireblodd Dwarves, volcanic Dwarves formerly enslaved by Red Dragons, resistant to heat and fire and born with the skill to battle Dragons;
–Ice Dwarves, former Duergar that resided with and served Frost Giants on a frigid outer plane and were shaped by it;
–Midgard Dwarves, shaped like and possessing the temperament of Dwarves, but in truth, strange Outsiders and the ultimate craftspeople, capable of creating just about any magic item…

Basically every core race has gotten these sort of subraces, because it's real easy to fill out a sourcebook with "Upland Temperate Rainforest Elves" or whatever. I don't think they're actually very useful, and they only make the racial monoculture issue worse by assigning variation that could be individual or cultural into a separate subrace.

What do you think that reason is? I doubt it is specific to Dwarves, at any rate, seeing how "racial monoculture" is the default assumption of the developers for literally anything barring Humans.

It's a widespread problem, but within D&D I think Dwarves absolutely have it the worst. It's much easier to make Elf or Orc or Tiefling characters that break from the established monoculture and still feel like a member of their fantasy race.

[Psyren]

What do you think that reason is? I doubt it is specific to Dwarves, at any rate, seeing how "racial monoculture" is the default assumption of the developers for literally anything barring Humans.

Except it's not. We even covered this earlier in the thread; Faerun elves are very different from Eberron elves which are very different from Ravnica Elves which are very different from Krynn elves etc. Same for Halflings and Orcs, and you yourself mentioned humans. Dwarves are a true outlier in terms of cross-setting consistency if not homogeneity.

I'm being hyperbolic of course, but yes, I do genuinely believe 5e's basic philosophy of balancing things far better than the crazy mess what was 3.5 resulted in a serious loss in terms of variation.

I don't know what else to tell you other than you're wrong. Variation does not have to be tied to fixed ASIs or slow movement to be meaningful, and that's really all 5e did away with.

No, I'm not. For starters, that's not how 3.5 works. The very strict race/monster distinction is a later development. Further, all I listed is officially playable, by WotC's own recommendation, and the only two outliers as far as starting ECL (CR-based "races as monsters" is A PF1 thing) is concerned are the Midgard Dwarf at ECL 12 (8 RHD/LA +4) and the Urdunnir at ECL 5 (LA +4), and both of those worked hard for that distinction. The rest has a fes items at LA +1 or +2, but in a 3.5 context, that's nothing much.

EDIT: Oh, and the Urdunnir is labeled as a race, rather than a monster. It is primarily meant or at least considered suitable for player use.

Well again, by that logic anything vaguely dwarf-shaped is a dwarf too, which means Azers and Earthen and Primordial Dwarves and Dwarf-Aasimars all count too. In which case 5e has nearly as much variation as 3.5e and the artificial edition barriers you're pointing to don't mean anything.

Basically every core race has gotten these sort of subraces, because it's real easy to fill out a sourcebook with "Upland Temperate Rainforest Elves" or whatever. I don't think they're actually very useful, and they only make the racial monoculture issue worse by assigning variation that could be individual or cultural into a separate subrace.

This too. I'd rather represent "Arctic Dwarf" and "Jungle Dwarf" with a background or starting feat than have two dozen different subraces for everything. 5e's approach was the right one.

[Metastachydium]

Basically every core race has gotten these sort of subraces, because it's real easy to fill out a sourcebook with "Upland Temperate Rainforest Elves" or whatever. I don't think they're actually very useful, and they only make the racial monoculture issue worse by assigning variation that could be individual or cultural into a separate subrace.

You'll have to explain to me how "can go for 48 hours without experiencing thirst", "can see ethereal creatures", fire resistence 5, "3' tall but as strong as a freaking Orc" or literally everything about the Urdunnir "could just be cultural", dude, because I'm not sure I follow. Also, these mechanical differences are separate from lazy fluff that just shuffles them under the headings of "here, have another monoculture".

Except it's not. We even covered this earlier in the thread; Faerun elves are very different from Eberron elves which are very different from Ravnica Elves which are very different from Krynn elves etc. Same for Halflings and Orcs, and you yourself mentioned humans. Dwarves are a true outlier in terms of cross-setting consistency if not homogeneity.

They all come in silly monocultures, and while I'm not intimately familiar with Dragonlance, let alone new stuff like Ravnica… Eberron doesn't do much about the basic archetype for Elves in particular as far as I can tell.

I don't know what else to tell you other than you're wrong. Variation does not have to be tied to fixed ASIs or slow movement to be meaningful, and that's really all 5e did away with.

Yeah, they only threw out about 20 odd subraces, all the exclusive PrCs, all the equipment options, and so on and so forth. I don't feel like I'm wrong here.

Well again, by that logic anything vaguely dwarf-shaped is a dwarf too, which means Azers and Earthen and Primordial Dwarves and Dwarf-Aasimars all count too.

No, these are literally and explicitly just Dwarves with the same base traits. Heck, if I start including equally playable Dwarf-adjacent and Dwarf-descended stuff such as Azerbloods, Maeluths, Earth Dwarves and the like…

In which case 5e has nearly as much variation as 3.5e and the artificial edition barriers you're pointing to don't mean anything.

3.5 has upwards of two dozen Dwarf races, in the strictes sense, alone. Does 5e even have as many races, Dwarves and otherwise in total?

This too. I'd rather represent "Arctic Dwarf" and "Jungle Dwarf" with a background or starting feat than have two dozen different subraces for everything. 5e's approach was the right one.

See above.

[Errorname]

You'll have to explain to me how "can go for 48 hours without experiencing thirst", "can see ethereal creatures", fire resistence 5, "3' tall but as strong as a freaking Orc" or literally everything about the Urdunnir "could just be cultural", dude, because I'm not sure I follow. Also, these mechanical differences are separate from lazy fluff that just shuffles them under the headings of "here, have another monoculture".

Fair point, they also include sorts of variation that are largely uninteresting and should be discarded. "Fire resistance" and a hue shift is lazy and slapdash, it's the sort of thing you get from writers who are never going to produce anything better than a boring monoculture.

Yeah, they only threw out about 20 odd subraces

Again, my specific issue is that I think there are limited amount of characters that you can play that still feel Dwarven. Whether or not a game includes dozens of largely interchangeable biome specific dwarf subtypes that let players pick if they want to be an Arctic Dwarf or an Ice Dwarf does not actually address the problem.

[GloatingSwine]

The stereotypical dwarf is very masc-presenting... beards, big hands, strong arms. I have to wonder if part of the declining popularity of dwarves doesn't tie back to the broadening of the fanbase.

TBH I think there's far more people in the target D&D bracket with big ol' dwarf beards now than there ever were back in the day.

I mean you may think all these newfangled races are popular, but they don't even have their own metal genre.

[Psyren]

Eberron doesn't do much about the basic archetype for Elves in particular as far as I can tell.

You're joking, right? Aerenei ancestor-worshipping mummies/liches? Valenar dervish desert barbarians? Which other setting has elves like those? And don't even get me started on the changes to their Drow.

3.5 has upwards of two dozen Dwarf races, in the strictes sense, alone. Does 5e even have as many races, Dwarves and otherwise in total?

If you consider things like dwarf-shaped monsters and Arctic Dwarves to be separate races - yes, for the reasons I previously mentioned.

Again, my specific issue is that I think there are limited amount of characters that you can play that still feel Dwarven. Whether or not a game includes dozens of largely interchangeable biome specific dwarf subtypes that let players pick if they want to be an Arctic Dwarf or an Ice Dwarf does not actually address the problem.

Exactly, I don't see what's so difficult to grasp about this concept. Jungle and Fire and Strawberry and Caffeine-Free Dwarves or whatever else 3.5 came up with so they could try selling 40 books a year was purely variation for variation's sake.

[LibraryOgre]

TBH I think there's far more people in the target D&D bracket with big ol' dwarf beards now than there ever were back in the day.

I mean you may think all these newfangled races are popular, but they don't even have their own metal genre.

Numbers? Yes. Ratio? IME, no.

[Jophiel]

They all come in silly monocultures, and while I'm not intimately familiar with Dragonlance

Dragonlance elves are just elves. They have some sea elves with webbed fingers playing a minor role but it's just "Fancy snooty high elves" and "Crunchy granola wood elves". And "wild elves" who are your typical feral granola elves.

[Witty Username]

Except it's not. We even covered this earlier in the thread; Faerun elves are very different from Eberron elves which are very different from Ravnica Elves which are very different from Krynn elves etc. Same for Halflings and Orcs, and you yourself mentioned humans. Dwarves are a true outlier in terms of cross-setting consistency if not homogeneity.

Faerun Dwarves are pretty far removed from Kaladesh Dwarves, and Kyrnn dwarves.

[OldTrees1]

If you consider things like dwarf-shaped monsters and Arctic Dwarves to be separate races - yes, for the reasons I previously mentioned.

Metastachydium was literally list off Dwarves. Not "dwarf-shaped monsters". Those were literally dwarven subspecies from 3.5E that players can pick for their Dwarf PCs. The Dream Dwarf subspecies can be found on pg 88-89 of Races of Stone if you continue to find 3E Dwarven diversity incredulous and you decide you want to check the source.

If you don't count them (by pretending they are "dwarf-shaped monsters", whatever you meant by that), then 5E has 0 Dwarves by the same logic.

Sidenote: The phrase "dwarf-shaped monsters", if it means dwarf-shaped monsters, can also be applied to all Dwarves. Dwarves are dwarf shaped and exist in D&D monster manuals. Almost like being included in the monster manual does not imply what you want it to imply.

[Psyren]

Metastachydium was literally list off Dwarves. Not "dwarf-shaped monsters". Those were literally dwarven subspecies from 3.5E that players can pick for their Dwarf PCs. The Dream Dwarf subspecies can be found on pg 88-89 of Races of Stone if you continue to find 3E Dwarven diversity incredulous and you decide you want to check the source.

If you don't count them (by pretending they are "dwarf-shaped monsters", whatever you meant by that), then 5E has 0 Dwarves by the same logic.

The OP was very clear that he's talking about Dwarf PCs. CR 2 and CR 5 monsters, from a book that literally has Monsters in the title, are not PCs at 90% of tables, and when they are they're at a huge disadvantage compared to other playable races. So no, I don't count them, and stand by what I said.