8.) "GETTING RID OF COOL RIBBON BACKGROUND FEATURES!" Name me one time someone in your game used their 2014-style Background Feature in a way that significantly improved a session or helped the story. One time. I'll wait. . .. ...nothing? Yeah, me neither. Most 'Background Features', especially in the PHB - and remember, this document concerns itself solely with PHB content - are things any self-respecting DM would just let you do because you have [X] background. Entertainers being able to sing for their supper? Roll a music check, see how much supper you get. Acolytes being able to shelter in temples? They're temples, it's a pretty terrible temple that turns away a faithful servant in need. Sages being able to look stuff up? Holy hell, if you tell your party they can't try and research stuff because none of them are Sages, I have no idea how anything happens at your table. I have yet to meet the DM that doesn't leap at the chance to dump world lore into players' laps through the paper-thin guise of "this is what that 8 on your Intelligence check found..."
I will just add one, outlander. Every party I have DMd seems to have one, just so they can tell everyone “it’s ok, we don’t need food or water for our travel montages”. I think that is the only one that has a practical in game benefit, and is always amusing to see the Druid look downcast that there goodberries won’t be what saves the party in the middle of nowhere.
Outlander's wanderer feature has been a lifesaver in our Dark Sun campaign. I've got a great DM who allows a lot of RP-based shenanigans and homebrew, but in a survival-heavy setting, that background really is key. Having that line of text to point to is really helpful, especially for new players and new DMs, and I'm really going to regret it if they go away entirely. Maybe, since feats are going to be the new Done Thing, some of them can become new feats.
I can totally see that outlander ability be a level 1 feat.
I agree and endorse what Yurei says here aside from the ardlings. They're obviously just a redesign of aasimar "but they're furries now." They decided to try adding aasimar to the playtest material, as furries.
Addling actually play a really important role in the PHB, it gives a character choice that shows new players just how creative they can get. Every other race pretty much is fixed, humanoid, short, tall, thin, fat but all have a face with 2 eyes, a nose, 2 ears and a mouth. This new race introduces some of the DnD craziness to players, you can play a man with the head of an elephant, a women with the head of a mouse. Look at it from that perspective vs, oh let’s have another humanoid type race.
Thank, you. May I add, Instead of complaining; playtest it. Don't like it? Send them feedback. Do Like it? Send them feedback. Won't try it? Send them that feedback.
I really like the direction. I made an Ardling yesterday. It was extremely clunky because A) I have been using DND Beyond exclusively since July last year B) it's a new way of doing things. I'm pretty happy with my results.
Honestly, I was worried that Racial distinctions were going to go away after the break from lore in Multiverse. But they leaned into the distinctions.
I am excited by the use of inspiration as a player run resource. I've noticed a big surge in the use of advantage/disadvantage in books and 3rd party stuff recently making inspiration useful. Cool concepts. We'll see what makes the books.
We're trying out the inspiration and Crit rules tonight to see how it plays at one of our tables. If we like it we may adopt it. If not, we'll go back to the way it was.
My one issue with the new crit rules in existing 5E is that advantage is so easy to get anyway, my players are constantly using tactics to get advantage in attacks. The Rogue will hide in between shots, the fighter and barbarian constantly flank enemies, the cleric or wizard are buffing and supporting the others to give them advantage. It kind of gets lost in they shuffle and feels a bit flat. I might be tempted to use a version of Bardic inspiration, a crit gives you a D4 or D6 to add to the next hit and damage rolls?
Just had someone panicking about "I heard they are removing Eldritch Blast in 1DD!"
I expected panic and confusion, but not at the levels that I have seen so far. Much of it could be resolved by simply reading the PDF and/or watching a video.
Meh I find it amusing to watch lol, but then it suits my chaotic nature.
We am still waiting for people to complain that elves might turn out being stupid, or orcs might be weak. Moving ASIs away from races and into backgrounds is such a good approach that just ends the “orcs must be strong, elves smart, dwarves resilient” argument.
For the most part, I like this UA. I’m a little unsure about the Crit changes, as crits no longer apply to spellcasting and also nerf paladins and rogues.
the one thing I’m missing is the elf and dwarf weapon training. Not that either need to be tied to a race as far as I’m concerned. I’d like to see the possibility of choosing one weapon proficiency (i.e. longsword, longbow, or battle axe) instead of a tool proficiency in the background options. Or maybe as part of a first level feat, although that would limit the usefulness of certain feats for martial characters.
For the most part, I like this UA. I’m a little unsure about the Crit changes, as crits no longer apply to spellcasting and also nerf paladins and rogues.
the one thing I’m missing is the elf and dwarf weapon training. Not that either need to be tied to a race as far as I’m concerned. I’d like to see the possibility of choosing one weapon proficiency (i.e. longsword, longbow, or battle axe) instead of a tool proficiency in the background options. Or maybe as part of a first level feat, although that would limit the usefulness of certain feats for martial characters.
I mean paladins and rogues still get the extra damage from attacking that sneak attack/smite give them. It means as a DM your not having to preempt a crit. In addition Rogues are statistically more likely to get a critical hit then most other classes which then makes them even more unbalanced.
What I mean is that one of the ways a rogue gets sneak attack is if they attack with advantage, therefore most rogues become adept at gaining advantage on there attacks as often as possible. This means they then have a higher chance of scoring a critical, meaning they will then get additional damage with the sneak attack.
What the new rule does for me is better, it means the rogue will get to attack with advantage in the future giving them a chance at sneak attack when they might not have done. Likewise a Paladin it gives them advantage meaning they can then be more certain of hitting and being able to pour smite in.
If you look at it that way I think it works to smooth out the combat better, the rogue and paladin hit with a nat 20 and then get advantage meaning they are more likely to hit next time as well.
And what's stopping you from making a researcher affiliated with a university of academia in your city of choice in the new system, with a bond of "The university gave me bountiful knowledge; I'll do what I can to enrich and protect it"? You don't have the "Researcher" ability; instead you have the contacts and background required to do research and also stuff that isn't just automatically assumed as part of your character. The entire idea of 'Background Features' that provide no benefit whatsoever that you couldn't get simply by having a worthwhile DM who agrees that certain backstories merit certain connections in the world is ridiculous.
Hey Yurei, just a suggestion. The spell list replacement is speculation, compared to pretty much everything else you wrote. I would love for you to change it to something that makes it clear we are still not certain as to the future of spell lists. I would really appreciate that, but you do you I guess. Also, everyone should watch the video released along side the UA, its an hour long and very informative.
Ardlings, with some proper tweaking, represent a FANTASTIC opportunity to create a celestial counterpart to Tieflings.
And exactly what in the incredibly in depth lore we've been given which consists entirely of their being of celestial heritage and furry, makes them so rich? The fact that they have flight ability roughly comparable to that of a typical chicken? At least the chicken's frantic flapping will prevent it from injuring itself on landing if it somehow manages to find itself more than ten feet in the air, which is more than an ardling can claim. Aasimar actually have lore in previous editions that doesn't appear in 5e because by the time they got updated WotC had adopted the "less is better" approach to all lore outside of published adventure modules. Even the tiny bit in Volo's actually establishes a meaningful connection to their heritage.
Tieflings in 5e, on the other hand, get the Edgelord Special of physical features that draw attention to their dark heritage, and cool edgy powers from their dark heritage, but they totally don't have any tendency whatsoever to actually act like the dark and dangerous devilish creatures that they merely look like and have cool powers associated with. Their entire lore consists of a bunch of reasons they resemble a 90s comic book antihero mixed with repeated insistent assertions that they absolutely don't have any natural inclination towards anything remotely connected with their entire dark and edgy schtick. Aasimar are at least stated to generally feel an influence and calling related to their heritage, but apparently a conscience that urges a character to do good deeds doesn't sell well with the kids these days, especially when you can get a completely arbitrary watered down version with cool animal aesthetics and [quoted directly from the UA] "without the responsibility of always having to do the right thing." That isn't rich lore, that's an assertion that they have no distinguishing moral characteristics which is the exact opposite of anything definitive.
Ardlings' furry appearance is literally the only thing they have to distinguish them from aasimar because they have the same minimalistic lack of actual lore that all races get from WotC lately. If you think that's going to change I recommend you flip through the races section of MMotM, which has been clearly stated as having been written and formatted in the style that WotC has planned for all sourcebooks going forward. Most of those races get less description than what ardlings have in the UA so you can bet that's all they're going to get. Even if they do get an expanded description you can definitely bet that it will be just more rephrasings of "they have celestial heritage and look like cool angelic animal people, but they aren't actually fundamentally motivated towards any specific morality because options."
Thank you! I wasn't panicking, but I did realize that the Internet Goblins absolutely would be panicking, and was thinking of how to placate them. unfortunately, I'm not good with my Charisma rolls. Much more Intelligence and Wisdom minded. So, on behalf of the Internet Goblins, I thank you for this PSA.
Outlander's wanderer feature has been a lifesaver in our Dark Sun campaign. I've got a great DM who allows a lot of RP-based shenanigans and homebrew, but in a survival-heavy setting, that background really is key. Having that line of text to point to is really helpful, especially for new players and new DMs, and I'm really going to regret it if they go away entirely. Maybe, since feats are going to be the new Done Thing, some of them can become new feats.
I agree! I hope some of them do become feats for 1st-level characters. But like Yurei said, some of these are just things that good DM's shouldn't need to have an ability to let a specific character use.
i think it would be better to have it as an alternative to a tool proficiency. i mean, it implies that you've trained with said weapon, right? and if you still really want that weapon proficiency for a class that cvan't naturally use that weapon/set of weapons, you can use the Weapon Master feat.
Tieflings in 5e, on the other hand, get the Edgelord Special of physical features that draw attention to their dark heritage, and cool edgy powers from their dark heritage, but they totally don't have any tendency whatsoever to actually act like the dark and dangerous devilish creatures that they merely look like and have cool powers associated with. Their entire lore consists of a bunch of reasons they resemble a 90s comic book antihero mixed with repeated insistent assertions that they absolutely don't have any natural inclination towards anything remotely connected with their entire dark and edgy schtick.
Which is consistent with how they've been portrayed since 1994.
I am kinda heartbroken about the loss of Half-Elves. They were my default for the longest time, and their unique space in the world, reflected by their two +1's and then +2 Cha, was also very nice. I don't like getting rid of them. Half-Orcs weren't as effected by this loss of half-race. Most people I knew that played half-orcs only did cuz "fUlL oRcS aRe EvIl". Half-Elves had always been a special niche that can't be accurately as demonstrated by "play using the elf stats, but aesthetically call yourself a half-elf".
On that same vein, the half-y rules seems kinda stupid, unless I'm misreading them. 1DD is saying "play using x stat-block, but you can customize them aesthetically." Of course you can, they're your character. But as stated previously, playing a half-elf with a full elf stat-block doesn't fit well. Unless it's to be interpreted you can mix and match lineages features. But even that will never compete with the same niche that Half-Elves serve now.
Dragonborn, despite just getting a revamp in Fizban's, changing to "now every breath weapon is a cone" seems kinda dumb. Stop switching it around, WotC. I for one also feel if it's something you can genetically do because you're some sorta dragonkin, you should be able to shape it, so like one use of it could be a 15 foot cone, then the next you could have it be be a 15 foot line, but mechanically idk how game breaking it would be.
Tieflings, at least from what I've been told, going back to a catch all for "fiend-blooded" instead of just "devil-blooded" is something that at first didn't sit right with me, but apparently older D&D that's what they were and it wasn't 'til 5E that "Tiefling" meant specifically Nine-Hells-blooded. I will admit, I'll miss all of those subraces. (RIP Zariel Tiefling).
Ardlings are neat, but I'll still probably default to my Aasimar pretty-peeps.
Tavern Brawler is still a bad feat. 1d4 is a bad damage die and pales in comparison to "Fighting Initiate - Unarmed Fighting". Also "Furniture as weapons" should go back to "Improvised weapons" instead of using words that only tie it to furniture.
Also, "When you pick a race you can either have 3 +1s or a +2 and a +1" getting removed for "just kidding, it's exclusively +2 and +1". Again make up your dang mind, WotC.
The last issue I have with a lot of these newer changes is the removal of "Sunlight Sensitivity". Drow/Duergar/Svirfneblin all being bred from Underdark natives would, logically, have eyes that would not work terribly well in the bright surface light. And mechanically "Is sun out? Yes. Disadvantage on Perception." is fairly easy to understand, and not terribly harsh.
One rule that isn't as agreed on, varies on DM, and really needs to be visually nipped in the butt by WotC by like, a video on their youtube or on here even, is Darkvision. Because you'll have players who treat it as Nightvision, you'll have DMs who say "it's night out and it's pitch-black, you can't see anything, and it's just really something that I feel a visual representation of what it's supposed to LOOK LIKE would stop the age old argument. Also, and this was pointed out by my DM, way too many lineages/ancestries have it. It's too commonplace. I can only think of Humans, and Halflings that DON'T have it.
Sorry if I highjacked your thread. Just putting my two-sense out there.
I am kinda heartbroken about the loss of Half-Elves. They were my default for the longest time, and their unique space in the world, reflected by their two +1's and then +2 Cha, was also very nice. I don't like getting rid of them. Half-Orcs weren't as effected by this loss of half-race. Most people I knew that played half-orcs only did cuz "fUlL oRcS aRe EvIl". Half-Elves had always been a special niche that can't be accurately as demonstrated by "play using the elf stats, but aesthetically call yourself a half-elf".
On that same vein, the half-y rules seems kinda stupid, unless I'm misreading them. 1DD is saying "play using x stat-block, but you can customize them aesthetically." Of course you can, they're your character. But as stated previously, playing a half-elf with a full elf stat-block doesn't fit well. Unless it's to be interpreted you can mix and match lineages features. But even that will never compete with the same niche that Half-Elves serve now.
Dragonborn, despite just getting a revamp in Fizban's, changing to "now every breath weapon is a cone" seems kinda dumb. Stop switching it around, WotC. I for one also feel if it's something you can genetically do because you're some sorta dragonkin, you should be able to shape it, so like one use of it could be a 15 foot cone, then the next you could have it be be a 15 foot line, but mechanically idk how game breaking it would be.
Tieflings, at least from what I've been told, going back to a catch all for "fiend-blooded" instead of just "devil-blooded" is something that at first didn't sit right with me, but apparently older D&D that's what they were and it wasn't 'til 5E that "Tiefling" meant specifically Nine-Hells-blooded. I will admit, I'll miss all of those subraces. (RIP Zariel Tiefling).
Ardlings are neat, but I'll still probably default to my Aasimar pretty-peeps.
Tavern Brawler is still a bad feat. 1d4 is a bad damage die and pales in comparison to "Fighting Initiate - Unarmed Fighting". Also "Furniture as weapons" should go back to "Improvised weapons" instead of using words that only tie it to furniture.
Also, "When you pick a race you can either have 3 +1s or a +2 and a +1" getting removed for "just kidding, it's exclusively +2 and +1". Again make up your dang mind, WotC.
The last issue I have with a lot of these newer changes is the removal of "Sunlight Sensitivity". Drow/Duergar/Svirfneblin all being bred from Underdark natives would, logically, have eyes that would not work terribly well in the bright surface light. And mechanically "Is sun out? Yes. Disadvantage on Perception." is fairly easy to understand, and not terribly harsh.
One rule that isn't as agreed on, varies on DM, and really needs to be visually nipped in the butt by WotC by like, a video on their youtube or on here even, is Darkvision. Because you'll have players who treat it as Nightvision, you'll have DMs who say "it's night out and it's pitch-black, you can't see anything, and it's just really something that I feel a visual representation of what it's supposed to LOOK LIKE would stop the age old argument. Also, and this was pointed out by my DM, way too many lineages/ancestries have it. It's too commonplace. I can only think of Humans, and Halflings that DON'T have it.
Sorry if I highjacked your thread. Just putting my two-sense out there.
My biggest question is why a race that is openly discussed as being alien to both parent's races and never fitting into either society gained a +2 cha bonus?
And also how the specific combination of parentage resulted in a statistically superior race in some cases?
I figure removing half-orc is just because of a further distancing from tying your character's existence to impled ****.
I agree and endorse what Yurei says here aside from the ardlings. They're obviously just a redesign of aasimar "but they're furries now." They decided to try adding aasimar to the playtest material, as furries.
If you watched the video attached to where you claim it, you'd see that Jeremy Crawford says that Ardlings are people of the outer plains like Tiefllings and like Aasimar. They are like Aasimar (in the sense they are from the outer planes) not they are Aasimar. They have fairly different abilities too, the closest thing being the 'Angelic Flight', which is different than the similar Protector Aasimar trait.
EDIT: saw your later post, you did see the video, but you still are kind of wrong about it. They are not "Appealing to furries", a quote which, quite frankly, paints you as a bigot. It is a new version of characters with celestial heritage that get innate spellcasting, which the Aasimar initially lacked in major forms, and provides more customization besides "Kind warrior, Righteous warrior, Edgelord warrior" and, like you said they are not motivated to be good because the human/elf/gnome/whatever in them allows to make their own choices. They might hate their heritage because they are expected to be good, or might be good because they live up to that expectation, which might be set by the aforementioned consciousnesses that was "removed"
If you'd actually read the thread before responding to a post in the first page, you'd see my other posts further expanding on the obvious fact that ardlings have absolutely no lore of any real meaning that's even suggested. I also stated, multiple times, that their innate spellcasting traits could just be tacked onto aasimar as extra lineages and it would fit just fine. They seem quite comfortable be doing it with other races so why not add aasimar to that list? And even with three different basic archetypes as you describe, that's three more actual suggested tendencies and characteristics than tieflings and ardlings get. They have all the "options" in the world because they are explicitly lacking any description that might remotely exclude any behavior whatsoever. Again, that is not lore and it is not substance, it's the lack of both. It is actively nothing for the explicit sake of being nothing.
I also didn't say a single negative thing about furries aside from the fact that they exist and are constantly screaming for "more animal races" and if you really expect me to believe that isn't accurate then you clearly haven't been looking at thread titles on this forum very much. I'm saying that the only distinctive trait of the ardling race, aside from mechanical traits that, again, could just as easily be aasimar lineages, is that they have an aesthetic that appeals to a very specific demographic. A demographic that has been repeatedly appeased by a zoo's worth of humanoid races that all exist for the primary purpose of being anthropomorhpic animals. Cats, birds, rabbits, turtles, other cats, minotaurs that are illustrated to look closer to Mooby the Golden Calf (a fictional cartoon character from from Kevin Smith's Askiewniverse movies) than anything from classic mythology, jackals, frogs, other birds, lizards, snakes, elephants, more birds, monkeys, hippos, whatever kind of insect thri-kreen are supposed to look like, and fish. It's a saturated demographic and I'm not even counting mythological races with some literal animal anatomy rather than being explicitly wholesale anthropomorphic animals like satyrs and centaurs. It is absolutely not "new" to say the new animal people are also a slight variation of a pre-existing race in addition to looking like any kind of animal. We just got six official races from Spelljammer and half of them were anthropomorphic animals.
Crawford mentions Egyptian mythology and existing D&D archons with animalistic appearances once, with no connection whatsoever to ardlings other than "you can get all sorts of inspiration for ardling characters." Then he does not mention those sources again, nor anything that could be remotely considered flavor or even general description beyond "a connection to the upper planes" and a very pointed reminder that just like tieflings that connection is meaningless because they have options. You can get inspiration from all sorts of places for characters of all races; there's a commonly recurring category of meme that always features a line like "DM: Just tell me what existing character you're imitating" then a picture from an anime, movie, TV show, comic, or some other media. Those memes have already started popping up about ardlings for any character that so much as wears an animal mask at some point so an image exists. I give it 48 hours, tops, until I see a meme with a picture from a production of Midsummer Night's Dream with Nick Bottom's head turned into that of a donkey cuddling up to Titania with a half-assed (pun intended) caption about "my new ardling bard PC." It is absolutely not original or distinctive.
They bring absolutely nothing to the game that can't already be done with aasimar except for the visual aesthetic, which is commonly called "furry" by everybody who knows what it is including people who self identify as such. Ardlings are just furry aasimar pretending to be an original concept that is something other than furry aasimar.
My biggest question is why a race that is openly discussed as being alien to both parent's races and never fitting into either society gained a +2 cha bonus?
And also how the specific combination of parentage resulted in a statistically superior race in some cases?
I figure removing half-orc is just because of a further distancing from tying your character's existence to impled ****.
My understanding is because half-elves are simultaneously alien to both, but also a bridge between both, hence the charisma.
Also yeah, Half-Elves are statistically superior. Why that happens is kinda illogical, I can agree with that.
Y'know, I hadn't wanted to think about that in regards to half-orcs but that's also probable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I will just add one, outlander. Every party I have DMd seems to have one, just so they can tell everyone “it’s ok, we don’t need food or water for our travel montages”. I think that is the only one that has a practical in game benefit, and is always amusing to see the Druid look downcast that there goodberries won’t be what saves the party in the middle of nowhere.
I can totally see that outlander ability be a level 1 feat.
Addling actually play a really important role in the PHB, it gives a character choice that shows new players just how creative they can get. Every other race pretty much is fixed, humanoid, short, tall, thin, fat but all have a face with 2 eyes, a nose, 2 ears and a mouth. This new race introduces some of the DnD craziness to players, you can play a man with the head of an elephant, a women with the head of a mouse. Look at it from that perspective vs, oh let’s have another humanoid type race.
My one issue with the new crit rules in existing 5E is that advantage is so easy to get anyway, my players are constantly using tactics to get advantage in attacks. The Rogue will hide in between shots, the fighter and barbarian constantly flank enemies, the cleric or wizard are buffing and supporting the others to give them advantage. It kind of gets lost in they shuffle and feels a bit flat. I might be tempted to use a version of Bardic inspiration, a crit gives you a D4 or D6 to add to the next hit and damage rolls?
Meh I find it amusing to watch lol, but then it suits my chaotic nature.
We am still waiting for people to complain that elves might turn out being stupid, or orcs might be weak. Moving ASIs away from races and into backgrounds is such a good approach that just ends the “orcs must be strong, elves smart, dwarves resilient” argument.
For the most part, I like this UA. I’m a little unsure about the Crit changes, as crits no longer apply to spellcasting and also nerf paladins and rogues.
the one thing I’m missing is the elf and dwarf weapon training. Not that either need to be tied to a race as far as I’m concerned. I’d like to see the possibility of choosing one weapon proficiency (i.e. longsword, longbow, or battle axe) instead of a tool proficiency in the background options. Or maybe as part of a first level feat, although that would limit the usefulness of certain feats for martial characters.
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
I mean paladins and rogues still get the extra damage from attacking that sneak attack/smite give them. It means as a DM your not having to preempt a crit. In addition Rogues are statistically more likely to get a critical hit then most other classes which then makes them even more unbalanced.
What I mean is that one of the ways a rogue gets sneak attack is if they attack with advantage, therefore most rogues become adept at gaining advantage on there attacks as often as possible. This means they then have a higher chance of scoring a critical, meaning they will then get additional damage with the sneak attack.
What the new rule does for me is better, it means the rogue will get to attack with advantage in the future giving them a chance at sneak attack when they might not have done. Likewise a Paladin it gives them advantage meaning they can then be more certain of hitting and being able to pour smite in.
If you look at it that way I think it works to smooth out the combat better, the rogue and paladin hit with a nat 20 and then get advantage meaning they are more likely to hit next time as well.
And what's stopping you from making a researcher affiliated with a university of academia in your city of choice in the new system, with a bond of "The university gave me bountiful knowledge; I'll do what I can to enrich and protect it"? You don't have the "Researcher" ability; instead you have the contacts and background required to do research and also stuff that isn't just automatically assumed as part of your character. The entire idea of 'Background Features' that provide no benefit whatsoever that you couldn't get simply by having a worthwhile DM who agrees that certain backstories merit certain connections in the world is ridiculous.
Please do not contact or message me.
Hey Yurei, just a suggestion. The spell list replacement is speculation, compared to pretty much everything else you wrote. I would love for you to change it to something that makes it clear we are still not certain as to the future of spell lists. I would really appreciate that, but you do you I guess. Also, everyone should watch the video released along side the UA, its an hour long and very informative.
N/A
And exactly what in the incredibly in depth lore we've been given which consists entirely of their being of celestial heritage and furry, makes them so rich? The fact that they have flight ability roughly comparable to that of a typical chicken? At least the chicken's frantic flapping will prevent it from injuring itself on landing if it somehow manages to find itself more than ten feet in the air, which is more than an ardling can claim. Aasimar actually have lore in previous editions that doesn't appear in 5e because by the time they got updated WotC had adopted the "less is better" approach to all lore outside of published adventure modules. Even the tiny bit in Volo's actually establishes a meaningful connection to their heritage.
Tieflings in 5e, on the other hand, get the Edgelord Special of physical features that draw attention to their dark heritage, and cool edgy powers from their dark heritage, but they totally don't have any tendency whatsoever to actually act like the dark and dangerous devilish creatures that they merely look like and have cool powers associated with. Their entire lore consists of a bunch of reasons they resemble a 90s comic book antihero mixed with repeated insistent assertions that they absolutely don't have any natural inclination towards anything remotely connected with their entire dark and edgy schtick. Aasimar are at least stated to generally feel an influence and calling related to their heritage, but apparently a conscience that urges a character to do good deeds doesn't sell well with the kids these days, especially when you can get a completely arbitrary watered down version with cool animal aesthetics and [quoted directly from the UA] "without the responsibility of always having to do the right thing." That isn't rich lore, that's an assertion that they have no distinguishing moral characteristics which is the exact opposite of anything definitive.
Ardlings' furry appearance is literally the only thing they have to distinguish them from aasimar because they have the same minimalistic lack of actual lore that all races get from WotC lately. If you think that's going to change I recommend you flip through the races section of MMotM, which has been clearly stated as having been written and formatted in the style that WotC has planned for all sourcebooks going forward. Most of those races get less description than what ardlings have in the UA so you can bet that's all they're going to get. Even if they do get an expanded description you can definitely bet that it will be just more rephrasings of "they have celestial heritage and look like cool angelic animal people, but they aren't actually fundamentally motivated towards any specific morality because options."
I wonder if we have a typo in UA, Ardlings should be Fury not Furry :)
Thank you! I wasn't panicking, but I did realize that the Internet Goblins absolutely would be panicking, and was thinking of how to placate them. unfortunately, I'm not good with my Charisma rolls. Much more Intelligence and Wisdom minded. So, on behalf of the Internet Goblins, I thank you for this PSA.
I agree! I hope some of them do become feats for 1st-level characters. But like Yurei said, some of these are just things that good DM's shouldn't need to have an ability to let a specific character use.
i think it would be better to have it as an alternative to a tool proficiency. i mean, it implies that you've trained with said weapon, right? and if you still really want that weapon proficiency for a class that cvan't naturally use that weapon/set of weapons, you can use the Weapon Master feat.
Which is consistent with how they've been portrayed since 1994.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I am kinda heartbroken about the loss of Half-Elves. They were my default for the longest time, and their unique space in the world, reflected by their two +1's and then +2 Cha, was also very nice. I don't like getting rid of them. Half-Orcs weren't as effected by this loss of half-race. Most people I knew that played half-orcs only did cuz "fUlL oRcS aRe EvIl". Half-Elves had always been a special niche that can't be accurately as demonstrated by "play using the elf stats, but aesthetically call yourself a half-elf".
On that same vein, the half-y rules seems kinda stupid, unless I'm misreading them. 1DD is saying "play using x stat-block, but you can customize them aesthetically." Of course you can, they're your character. But as stated previously, playing a half-elf with a full elf stat-block doesn't fit well. Unless it's to be interpreted you can mix and match lineages features. But even that will never compete with the same niche that Half-Elves serve now.
Dragonborn, despite just getting a revamp in Fizban's, changing to "now every breath weapon is a cone" seems kinda dumb. Stop switching it around, WotC. I for one also feel if it's something you can genetically do because you're some sorta dragonkin, you should be able to shape it, so like one use of it could be a 15 foot cone, then the next you could have it be be a 15 foot line, but mechanically idk how game breaking it would be.
Tieflings, at least from what I've been told, going back to a catch all for "fiend-blooded" instead of just "devil-blooded" is something that at first didn't sit right with me, but apparently older D&D that's what they were and it wasn't 'til 5E that "Tiefling" meant specifically Nine-Hells-blooded. I will admit, I'll miss all of those subraces. (RIP Zariel Tiefling).
Ardlings are neat, but I'll still probably default to my Aasimar pretty-peeps.
Tavern Brawler is still a bad feat. 1d4 is a bad damage die and pales in comparison to "Fighting Initiate - Unarmed Fighting". Also "Furniture as weapons" should go back to "Improvised weapons" instead of using words that only tie it to furniture.
Also, "When you pick a race you can either have 3 +1s or a +2 and a +1" getting removed for "just kidding, it's exclusively +2 and +1". Again make up your dang mind, WotC.
The last issue I have with a lot of these newer changes is the removal of "Sunlight Sensitivity". Drow/Duergar/Svirfneblin all being bred from Underdark natives would, logically, have eyes that would not work terribly well in the bright surface light. And mechanically "Is sun out? Yes. Disadvantage on Perception." is fairly easy to understand, and not terribly harsh.
One rule that isn't as agreed on, varies on DM, and really needs to be visually nipped in the butt by WotC by like, a video on their youtube or on here even, is Darkvision. Because you'll have players who treat it as Nightvision, you'll have DMs who say "it's night out and it's pitch-black, you can't see anything, and it's just really something that I feel a visual representation of what it's supposed to LOOK LIKE would stop the age old argument. Also, and this was pointed out by my DM, way too many lineages/ancestries have it. It's too commonplace. I can only think of Humans, and Halflings that DON'T have it.
Sorry if I highjacked your thread. Just putting my two-sense out there.
My biggest question is why a race that is openly discussed as being alien to both parent's races and never fitting into either society gained a +2 cha bonus?
And also how the specific combination of parentage resulted in a statistically superior race in some cases?
I figure removing half-orc is just because of a further distancing from tying your character's existence to impled ****.
If you'd actually read the thread before responding to a post in the first page, you'd see my other posts further expanding on the obvious fact that ardlings have absolutely no lore of any real meaning that's even suggested. I also stated, multiple times, that their innate spellcasting traits could just be tacked onto aasimar as extra lineages and it would fit just fine. They seem quite comfortable be doing it with other races so why not add aasimar to that list? And even with three different basic archetypes as you describe, that's three more actual suggested tendencies and characteristics than tieflings and ardlings get. They have all the "options" in the world because they are explicitly lacking any description that might remotely exclude any behavior whatsoever. Again, that is not lore and it is not substance, it's the lack of both. It is actively nothing for the explicit sake of being nothing.
I also didn't say a single negative thing about furries aside from the fact that they exist and are constantly screaming for "more animal races" and if you really expect me to believe that isn't accurate then you clearly haven't been looking at thread titles on this forum very much. I'm saying that the only distinctive trait of the ardling race, aside from mechanical traits that, again, could just as easily be aasimar lineages, is that they have an aesthetic that appeals to a very specific demographic. A demographic that has been repeatedly appeased by a zoo's worth of humanoid races that all exist for the primary purpose of being anthropomorhpic animals. Cats, birds, rabbits, turtles, other cats, minotaurs that are illustrated to look closer to Mooby the Golden Calf (a fictional cartoon character from from Kevin Smith's Askiewniverse movies) than anything from classic mythology, jackals, frogs, other birds, lizards, snakes, elephants, more birds, monkeys, hippos, whatever kind of insect thri-kreen are supposed to look like, and fish. It's a saturated demographic and I'm not even counting mythological races with some literal animal anatomy rather than being explicitly wholesale anthropomorphic animals like satyrs and centaurs. It is absolutely not "new" to say the new animal people are also a slight variation of a pre-existing race in addition to looking like any kind of animal. We just got six official races from Spelljammer and half of them were anthropomorphic animals.
Crawford mentions Egyptian mythology and existing D&D archons with animalistic appearances once, with no connection whatsoever to ardlings other than "you can get all sorts of inspiration for ardling characters." Then he does not mention those sources again, nor anything that could be remotely considered flavor or even general description beyond "a connection to the upper planes" and a very pointed reminder that just like tieflings that connection is meaningless because they have options. You can get inspiration from all sorts of places for characters of all races; there's a commonly recurring category of meme that always features a line like "DM: Just tell me what existing character you're imitating" then a picture from an anime, movie, TV show, comic, or some other media. Those memes have already started popping up about ardlings for any character that so much as wears an animal mask at some point so an image exists. I give it 48 hours, tops, until I see a meme with a picture from a production of Midsummer Night's Dream with Nick Bottom's head turned into that of a donkey cuddling up to Titania with a half-assed (pun intended) caption about "my new ardling bard PC." It is absolutely not original or distinctive.
They bring absolutely nothing to the game that can't already be done with aasimar except for the visual aesthetic, which is commonly called "furry" by everybody who knows what it is including people who self identify as such. Ardlings are just furry aasimar pretending to be an original concept that is something other than furry aasimar.
My understanding is because half-elves are simultaneously alien to both, but also a bridge between both, hence the charisma.
Also yeah, Half-Elves are statistically superior. Why that happens is kinda illogical, I can agree with that.
Y'know, I hadn't wanted to think about that in regards to half-orcs but that's also probable.