I would like it, if they replace all the disparate animal people with have so far. It will be way easier to find a place in the world for a single animal-headed species than to find a niche for Tabaxi, Tortles, Loxodon, Kenku, etc, etc. Thus they're easier to include and the people who like animal people can play what they want. Win-Win.
But this lets my rainbow frog be holy and not poisonous.
Just saying, we haven't seen any art yet, and the text says "resembling" an animal, not necessarily the head of an animal. This opens a range of descriptive possibilities. A very otherwise "human" like head could be characterized as birdlike, froggy, etc. Think the Shifters and their "beastial" look. My own criticism to the material would be the description needs to be better as to what we're actually looking at. I do like how both they and the new Tieflings allow for ties to a number of different planes, that's good for game building. I guess I'm a bit not sure about why the Aasimar and Ardlings can't be grouped under a general "celestine" race or what not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Personally I hate the idea of one of my adventurers walking around with an elephant head, cat head or any other animal head. Verging on ridiculous. It breaks the immersion for me. It belongs in Egyptian mythology not D&D lore.
So this is a race I will ban in my campaigns.
Agreed. (Except for the part I crossed out of course.)
Banning it seems a bit harsh when you can just alter the description for them to have minor characteristics or mannerisms of their spirit animal instead. Flavor is mutable, folks.
Banning it seems a bit harsh when you can just alter the description for them to have minor characteristics or mannerisms of their spirit animal instead. Flavor is mutable, folks.
I just think the whole idea of them is kinda dumb. There doesn’t need to be a polar opposite of Tieflings. Heck, I don’t think Tieflings should be in the PHB either for that matter.
Banning it seems a bit harsh when you can just alter the description for them to have minor characteristics or mannerisms of their spirit animal instead. Flavor is mutable, folks.
I just think the whole idea of them is kinda dumb. There doesn’t need to be a polar opposite of Tieflings. Heck, I don’t think Tieflings should be in the PHB either for that matter.
Banning it seems a bit harsh when you can just alter the description for them to have minor characteristics or mannerisms of their spirit animal instead. Flavor is mutable, folks.
I just think the whole idea of them is kinda dumb. There doesn’t need to be a polar opposite of Tieflings. Heck, I don’t think Tieflings should be in the PHB either for that matter.
:'(
Don’t get me wrong, I think they should exist, but I would rather see Orcs Goblins and Hobgoblins in the PHB before Tieflings or Dragonborn (or Ardlings).
I used to be opposed to certain races being available as player characters but rather than banning them I made virtually any race available to players, whether or not the existed in my setting or not, there are portals to other worlds so why not allow them, doesnt mean I have to add that race to my setting though, so a player who wants to be a Warforged or whatever in my world is possibly the only one.
If you dont like Ardlings just make it so that the player is unique in your world. Let the player be what they want, but let them know that their race doesnt have a fott hold in your world. It can be fun letting a player be a unique creature.
Having said that its fine to limit character creation in session zero, most of us do it in one form or another, like if you have a certain theme in mind it would be inappropriate for a player to diverge from the declared theme.
In a Knights of the round table theme you wouldn't allow criminal backgrounds for example.
Just be clear from the start and don't be salty. Define the theme of your game.
It also amuses me that nearly everyone is giving them an extra A. There's only one A in there! They're not aaasimaaar, they're ardlings!
What if your aardling has aardvark features tho
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Aardlings feel like WotC saying, "Aasimar are too Judeo-Christian. Aardlings will bring more diversity."
they released the 1D&D stuff during an announcement that included women, persons of color, and pyromaniacs. if aardlings and half-races are expanding upon that diversity in some way it wouldn't surprise me. my worlds may not always be filled with persons who enjoy diversity, but my table won't be diminished by additional opportunities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
How are we surmising what will be in the new PHB? Eg someone claimed that Orc will be in the new PHB...how do we know that? I'm not sure that being in this playtest means that they are even intended for the PHB?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
How are we surmising what will be in the new PHB? Eg someone claimed that Aasimar will be in the new PHB...how do we know that? I'm not sure that even being in this playtest means that they are intended for the PHB?
I'm just curious if I'm missing something.
JC tells us in the video that Ardlings and Orcs are being added to the PHB and we know the Half Elves and Half Orcs are being removed because of the UA.
Personally I hate the idea of one of my adventurers walking around with an elephant head, cat head or any other animal head. Verging on ridiculous. It breaks the immersion for me. It belongs in Egyptian mythology not D&D lore.
So this is a race I will ban in my campaigns.
meh... I don't so much care about new races being "supported"(I won't have crap in my game outside of Human/Dwarf/Elf/Dragonborn/Halfling no matter WHAT they put into the core book unless I am running a special campaign), I just don't like extra clutter in the primary book that could be used to put in more details for how to role play, etc. Hell, I would be fine with a PHB 2 or Players options, or Races of the Multiverse type books that come out after the core book with Dragonborn/Tieflings/Furrys/etc, just not in the primary book IMHO.
Personally I've always felt like there are too many Races in D&D as is. I feel like D&D is more approaching a sort of "Star Wars'ian" design, where anything and everything is allowed but aside from their cosmetic variations, they are all basically humans. So much time is spent looking at the mechanics nobody pays any real attention to making a different species (which is more accurate than race) and distinct societies. And how do all these different species fit on the same ball of mud? I can see this working in Spelljammer and Planescape, but not in Middle Earth or whatever the world names are for Game of Thrones and the Kingkiller Trilogy, or The Witcher. And I feel it is important to recognize that these are the most widely celebrated Fantasy Worlds (probably passing over a few others with apologies).
But this lets my rainbow frog be holy and not poisonous.
I don't think it stands in well for any of the anthro races, on account of the holy theme.
Just saying, we haven't seen any art yet, and the text says "resembling" an animal, not necessarily the head of an animal. This opens a range of descriptive possibilities. A very otherwise "human" like head could be characterized as birdlike, froggy, etc. Think the Shifters and their "beastial" look. My own criticism to the material would be the description needs to be better as to what we're actually looking at. I do like how both they and the new Tieflings allow for ties to a number of different planes, that's good for game building. I guess I'm a bit not sure about why the Aasimar and Ardlings can't be grouped under a general "celestine" race or what not.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Agreed. (Except for the part I crossed out of course.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Banning it seems a bit harsh when you can just alter the description for them to have minor characteristics or mannerisms of their spirit animal instead. Flavor is mutable, folks.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I just think the whole idea of them is kinda dumb. There doesn’t need to be a polar opposite of Tieflings. Heck, I don’t think Tieflings should be in the PHB either for that matter.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
:'(
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Don’t get me wrong, I think they should exist, but I would rather see Orcs Goblins and Hobgoblins in the PHB before Tieflings or Dragonborn (or Ardlings).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I used to be opposed to certain races being available as player characters but rather than banning them I made virtually any race available to players, whether or not the existed in my setting or not, there are portals to other worlds so why not allow them, doesnt mean I have to add that race to my setting though, so a player who wants to be a Warforged or whatever in my world is possibly the only one.
If you dont like Ardlings just make it so that the player is unique in your world. Let the player be what they want, but let them know that their race doesnt have a fott hold in your world. It can be fun letting a player be a unique creature.
Having said that its fine to limit character creation in session zero, most of us do it in one form or another, like if you have a certain theme in mind it would be inappropriate for a player to diverge from the declared theme.
In a Knights of the round table theme you wouldn't allow criminal backgrounds for example.
Just be clear from the start and don't be salty. Define the theme of your game.
Aardlings feel like WotC saying, "Aasimar are too Judeo-Christian. Aardlings will bring more diversity."
Agreed.
It also amuses me that nearly everyone is giving them an extra A. There's only one A in there! They're not aaasimaaar, they're ardlings!
What if your aardling has aardvark features tho
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
they released the 1D&D stuff during an announcement that included women, persons of color, and pyromaniacs. if aardlings and half-races are expanding upon that diversity in some way it wouldn't surprise me. my worlds may not always be filled with persons who enjoy diversity, but my table won't be diminished by additional opportunities.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
How are we surmising what will be in the new PHB? Eg someone claimed that Orc will be in the new PHB...how do we know that? I'm not sure that being in this playtest means that they are even intended for the PHB?
I'm just curious if I'm missing something.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
JC tells us in the video that Ardlings and Orcs are being added to the PHB and we know the Half Elves and Half Orcs are being removed because of the UA.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Then you'd be Set, don't be Set he's kind of a prick.
So, O keep seeong this excuse mentioned, about Archons being very anthropomorthic. I decided to look back at some material.
We have the
Lantern Archon - which is a floating ball of light (and would be a badass Cleric Familiar)
***Hound Archon*** - that has the body of large hound walking on two legs, and ironically can shapeshift into a hound.
Trumpet Archon - traditional angel
Owl Archon - a large sized owl
Sword Archon - tradional angel
Thron Archon - traditional angel
Warden Archon - a massive bear in armor (doesn't seem anthropmorphic, but could be)
I also seem to remember a Scroll Archon and maybe one other, but 1 out 7 doesn't really work for Ardlings.
meh... I don't so much care about new races being "supported"(I won't have crap in my game outside of Human/Dwarf/Elf/Dragonborn/Halfling no matter WHAT they put into the core book unless I am running a special campaign), I just don't like extra clutter in the primary book that could be used to put in more details for how to role play, etc. Hell, I would be fine with a PHB 2 or Players options, or Races of the Multiverse type books that come out after the core book with Dragonborn/Tieflings/Furrys/etc, just not in the primary book IMHO.
Personally I've always felt like there are too many Races in D&D as is. I feel like D&D is more approaching a sort of "Star Wars'ian" design, where anything and everything is allowed but aside from their cosmetic variations, they are all basically humans. So much time is spent looking at the mechanics nobody pays any real attention to making a different species (which is more accurate than race) and distinct societies. And how do all these different species fit on the same ball of mud? I can see this working in Spelljammer and Planescape, but not in Middle Earth or whatever the world names are for Game of Thrones and the Kingkiller Trilogy, or The Witcher. And I feel it is important to recognize that these are the most widely celebrated Fantasy Worlds (probably passing over a few others with apologies).
There are also Guardinals, all of which are anthropomorphic.
Avoral - Bird
Cervidal - Goat
Equinal - Horse
Leonal - Lion
Lupinal - Wolf
Musteval - Mouse
Ursinal - Bear