D&D 5E Why aren't bullywugs a PC race in 5E?

[Willie the Duck]

I am guessing it is to avoid having massively multiple anthro-style PC races <edit: of the same IRL animal>. Obviously D&D has never shied away from going to the same well multiple times, but I imagine they don't want the designers of each setting having to try to figure out a place to put Grung, Bullywug, and Grippli into their campaign setting (in PC-adjacent ways).

 

[Jer]

They're saving them for whatever they're doing for the D&D cartoon.

I think I'm only half joking about that.

 

[Charlaquin]

Were bullywugs actually a playable race in 4e?

Yes

I remember that in 4e bullywugs were so loathsome that if you rolled a critical hit against one and killed it, you gained bonus HP. They were more of an NPC thing. Given that their lore is that they are full on 100% evil, destructive and just nasty, I'm not sure they would be a good PC race.

Full on 100% evil races have been going out of fashion.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am guessing it is to avoid having massively multiple anthro-style PC races.

That… Doesn’t seem like something they care about avoiding…

Obviously D&D has never shied away from going to the same well multiple times, but I imagine they don't want the designers of each setting having to try to figure out a place to put Grung, Bullywug, and Grippli into their campaign setting (in PC-adjacent ways).

I don’t think they care about that. It’s not like the designers of each setting have had to figure out a place for Loxodon, or Tabaxi, or Harengon, or whatever else. If it fits a setting, it’ll be there; if it doesn’t, no big deal.

 

[CleverNickName]

I mean, technically any "PC race" you can imaging is in 5E now, with the rules for Custom Character Origins in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.
But I see your point.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Maybe a subrace could be living in the Feywild, and then we could see a PC race but with a special touch.

 

[Willie the Duck]

That… Doesn’t seem like something they care about avoiding…

I don’t think they care about that. It’s not like the designers of each setting have had to figure out a place for Loxodon, or Tabaxi, or Harengon, or whatever else. If it fits a setting, it’ll be there; if it doesn’t, no big deal.

Those are anthro races of different animals. I mean different races that both(/all) attempt to approximate the same IRL animal. Multiple frogs, in this case.

 

[aco175]

At some point there can be just one animaloid race and all the powers and abilities are just listed for you to pick a few. Similar to Aasimar of old. There can be charts to roll on and abilities to match your mood and time of day. But I suspect the appeal is that there is one animal people like, kind of like Pokemon.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Ah, I miss my grippli PC, good ol' Cassidy.

 

[Yaarel]

Were bullywugs actually a playable race in 4e? I remember that in 4e bullywugs were so loathsome that if you rolled a critical hit against one and killed it, you gained bonus HP. They were more of an NPC thing. Given that their lore is that they are full on 100% evil, destructive and just nasty, I'm not sure they would be a good PC race.

But, I do agree, we could use a frog people. It's not a bad concept.

If I recall correctly, in the 5e Witchlight, the bullywug statblock seemed ok. They were Any alignment, and certain factions had specific alignments. An order of knights had typically Lawful Good members, the royals were typically Evil. Did these knights serve these royals?