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.
ASI's come from Backgrounds in this and you still have the option of the three +1's. It's on page 11.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
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.
Restating that you are against people having options for characters. And implying discontentment that people have joy over these things. Noted.
Still not seeing a good reason other than "I don't like them" as to why they don't exist.
Gee, Flush, it's almost as if it's playtest material! *GASP* Shocker! Imagine that! Whoever knew that playtest material might be...UNFINISHED?!?!?!?!
I could write a whole lore blurb about how Aasimar draw their abilities from an angelic Deva with whom they maintain a constant connection, whereas Ardlings draw their powers from the interactions their ancestors had with the divine animalistic Archons of yore in the same way Tieflings draw theirs' from interactions their ancestors had with fiends, but really all that proves is that I have the imagination to support a wider variety of character options.
Restating that you are against people having options for characters. And implying discontentment that people have joy over these things. Noted.
How about I sell you the ultimate TTRPG sourcebook with the most options possibly available? It looks like a blank notebook, but you have the option of filling it with anything you desire. The options are limitless, and you can even draw a picture of a raccoon man and write about how he can fly almost as good as a mildly overweight chicken!
The point, Flush, is that playtest documents have a relative bare minimum of L.O.R.E. in them because nobody's playtesting the lore. They're playtesting the general feel and mechanics. A lot of people have shown in the last couple of days that they hate furries and want them all to stop playing D&D. That feels a little harsh to me, especially since the furries will just transplant furryness onto the game's default species if they want anyways. If you don't think shifters have been an inlet for furries since Eberron dropped, I've got some bridgefront property for ye.
Regardless. Playtest document. Specifically, deliberately light on lore. For very good reasons.
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.
ASI's come from Backgrounds in this and you still have the option of the three +1's. It's on page 11.
I guess what I meant is all of the "premade" backgrounds all seem to have a +2 +1 format. I see now that the three +1s is still an option though.
Allow me to phrase my point differently. Ardlings are pointless because the very same playtest document contains rules and precedent for making an identical character if you replace ardlings in the document with extra aasimar lineages.
I shall elaborate.
Aasimar lineages that are just innate spellcasting for abilities and a note that you trade out the darkvision and necrotic resistance for the chicken flight. Precedent for such alterations exist in the elven lineages.
Use the hybrid race rules. Father was an aasimar who had a one night stand with an awakened animal. It's cool because the liaison was consensual between two sentient beings. Character is mechanically an aasimar with one of the new lineages, and has physical traits inherited from their mother in the form of the appropriate animal head and fur/feathers/whatever.
Completely identical both aesthetically and mechanically to an ardling without making a new race that's literally just a reskinned aasimar and telling us it isn't.
Well I'm pretty sure the Ardlings are intended for Planescape and they've just lumped it in with the core rules UA because they can (see literally all the UA in the past few years)...
Allow me to phrase my point differently. Ardlings are pointless because the very same playtest document contains rules and precedent for making an identical character if you replace ardlings in the document with extra aasimar lineages.
I shall elaborate.
Aasimar lineages that are just innate spellcasting for abilities and a note that you trade out the darkvision and necrotic resistance for the chicken flight. Precedent for such alterations exist in the elven lineages.
Use the hybrid race rules. Father was an aasimar who had a one night stand with an awakened animal. It's cool because the liaison was consensual between two sentient beings. Character is mechanically an aasimar with one of the new lineages, and has physical traits inherited from their mother in the form of the appropriate animal head and fur/feathers/whatever.
Completely identical both aesthetically and mechanically to an ardling without making a new race that's literally just a reskinned aasimar and telling it isn't.
Both these things can exist, and be narratively and mechanically distinct. Just like how Devils and Demons can both exist, and be narratively and mechanically distinct.
Also, I highly suggest you look up the lore on Archons in older editions (pre-4th). It's quite fascinating actually.
Well I'm pretty sure the Ardlings are intended for Planescape and they've just lumped it in with the core rules UA because they can (see literally all the UA in the past few years)...
I just had a thought...I can't call it a good thought, but it's a thought. What if WotC chucks out FR and makes Planescape the default setting for 2024?
The Aardlings appearance is just a little jarring in my opinion. Don't know why but a man with a dog head is far harder to visualise then a dog-man.
Beyond that I'm not a fan of using spells as racial traits, much prefer racial traits to be their own unique thing even they're based on a spell. But that is not just an Aardling thing so.
Well I'm pretty sure the Ardlings are intended for Planescape and they've just lumped it in with the core rules UA because they can (see literally all the UA in the past few years)...
I just had a thought...I can't call it a good thought, but it's a thought. What if WotC chucks out FR and makes Planescape the default setting for 2024?
3.) "REMOVING CRITICAL HITS FROM D&D FOREVAR!" The playtest document is experimenting with removing crits from monsters, and turning critical hits into a player-only ability. Jeremy Crawford laid out, in crystal clear unmistakable terms, that this is an experiment. The playtest document is just that, and if there's enough outrage then they'll back off and reinstate monster crits. But frankly, the dev team's justification for removing monster crits is actually very good. It allows the team more freedom to design cool monsters and has a nontrivial impact on encounter balancing. Challenge Rating will work better when monsters can't randomly deal double damage for no reason, and treating Recharge as the monster-only counterpart to the PCs' ability to Crit is a really cool dynamic. try it out, you may find yourself agreeing with them.
Meh.. TBH, I would not worry so much about this as a GM if they did not JUST redo a TON of monsters and yet some of the most iconic monsters don't have recharge powers. Example Orcs. I think I saw 6 orcs and 1 of those have a recharge power. this is a hesitant "well see, but initial thoughts are nope"
6.) "GETTING RID OF MY FAVORITE SUBRACE!" Subraces are not gone. Well, they are gone, but that's because the things subraces used to do have been folded into a choice one makes within a base species. You select a Legacy/Lineage for elves, ardlings, tieflings, and gnomes, with that legacy giving you back everything your subspecies used to and in many cases a little more. You still select a draconic ancestry for dragonborn. Dwarves do not select a Legacy, but that's because the best traits of Mountain dwarf and Hill dwarf were folded into the one singular 'Dwarf' species, which is arguably one of the most powerful options in the document.
im gonna say it: I wish they were more toward what PF2e did. My biggest issue is that your choice of race means nothing past the first level pick an overwhelming amount of the time. Not only do you NOT get more dwarfy as you level up, but you don't have any more choices as to how your dwarfiness manifests as you level up. PF2e does this in excellent way with specific picks at specific levels of "pick a racial feat choice" with meaningful choices to make you more dwarfy.
I don't so much care about the whole dwarf culture break down for hill/mountain dwarf, but damn it matters for things like say duegar for example(at least in my mind) or deep gnomes.
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..."
Every single one of the last 6 sessions since I joined an existing campaign that started at 4th level. Every single session, across four different locations. Ruins are everywhere. I picked Architect and I used Historical Knowledge in every single session so far. Now that won't be possible in every session going forward, but it sure was useful so far. And my GM knowing my personal quest is to find ruins and catalog them for history, he will know put more dungeons into the game. Now, to be fair, one of the locations was an abandoned Bard College and our Bard was able to glean even MORE information than I was but that's beside the point. I like dungeons both as a PC as well as a player of the game, dungeons are cool.
Now with that said, I want to get back to feats in general. WOTC!!!!!! I want more feats, I want choices that matter to developing not just martial but out of combat specific feats AND picks during level up to get said non combat feats. DO NOT make me choose between roleplay feat picks and "stay alive better" feat picks with such limited feat choices in the game dammit!
I certainly like the level 1 feats and HOPE that means some of the existing OP feats such as Great Weapons Master are moved to like say level 8 or 12 or whatever. And for hte love of all the holy or unholy whatevers don't make me choose between a feat and an ASI as the only options. If you want to make feats stay option, that's fine, but make the character sheet work with your "optional rules variants" and make feats optional AND give picks that are not tied to level 4/8/etc ASI picks as "pick only one of these things".
...oh. It says something against having wings... embarrassing, considering satire was one of the main points of your arguments, and even that is inaccurate.
And the six completely new, never before seen animal races in spelljammer... sorry to break it to you, but those already existed in earlier editions... so did minotaurs, tortles, tabaxi, grung, aarocokra... "
Now you're just making a fool of yourself.
1) Apparently you haven't actually even read the ardling rules. I'm referring to their Angelic Flight racial trait. They can fly their walking speed for one round at a time, and if they're airborne at the end of their movement they immediately fall. Fun fact, chickens aren't truly flightless; they just can't fly well because they lack the wing strength to stay aloft for more than a few seconds. But they can often cover thirty feet horizontally in such a flight. They rarely get higher than maybe ten feet, but their frantic flapping is still enough that they could land without injury from the thirty feet that an ardling will get to by flying straight up before immediately taking 3d6 fall damage so I say it's fair to say the two capabilities are comparable.
2) Please tell me where in my post I said anything about the examples I gave being new and never seen before? Those Spelljammer races were "new" to 5e as much as the ardlings are because there weren't official 5e rules for them prior to that publication. My entire point was that we already have more than a dozen furry races without needing a reskinned aasimar to add more.
Both these things can exist, and be narratively and mechanically distinct. Just like how Devils and Demons can both exist, and be narratively and mechanically distinct.
Also, I highly suggest you look up the lore on Archons in older editions (pre-4th). It's quite fascinating actually.
Devils and demons are narratively and mechanically distinct. My example and an ardling as written are mechanically identical, and aesthetically they're both humanoids with celestial heritage and physical features of an animal. You want to use something like a hound archon instead of an awakened animal as one of the parents and have the other be a human/dwarf/etc? Go ahead, you still get a humanoid animal person with celestial heritage andthe stats of what can be a new aasimar lineage.
To put it yet another way, using an analogy. If I put taco sauce on a hot dog and tell you it's a "fiesta sausage" you're probably going to be able to quickly discern that it's just a hot dog with taco sauce on it. An ardling is just an aasimar with an animal head and it's absurd to insist it's anything more.
At least with the endless parade of variant elves we get something dif- oh no, wait. This is exactly like yet another elven subrace/lineage but now we're putting fur on it and calling it a gwotling.
Restating that you are against people having options for characters. And implying discontentment that people have joy over these things. Noted.
How about I sell you the ultimate TTRPG sourcebook with the most options possibly available? It looks like a blank notebook, but you have the option of filling it with anything you desire. The options are limitless, and you can even draw a picture of a raccoon man and write about how he can fly almost as good as a mildly overweight chicken!
Did that for over 20 years my dude. Created my own player handbook, class book, spellbook, and 3 custom worlds. Me and 10 of my friends spent 2 decades building everything we wanted and you know what? Its a lot of work. I much prefer having 50% of that stuff done for me.
Allow me to phrase my point differently. Ardlings are pointless because the very same playtest document contains rules and precedent for making an identical character if you replace ardlings in the document with extra aasimar lineages.
I shall elaborate.
Aasimar lineages that are just innate spellcasting for abilities and a note that you trade out the darkvision and necrotic resistance for the chicken flight. Precedent for such alterations exist in the elven lineages.
Use the hybrid race rules. Father was an aasimar who had a one night stand with an awakened animal. It's cool because the liaison was consensual between two sentient beings. Character is mechanically an aasimar with one of the new lineages, and has physical traits inherited from their mother in the form of the appropriate animal head and fur/feathers/whatever.
Completely identical both aesthetically and mechanically to an ardling without making a new race that's literally just a reskinned aasimar and telling it isn't.
What if I don't like the racial options of aasimar? What if I do like the Ardling ones?
The Aardlings appearance is just a little jarring in my opinion. Don't know why but a man with a dog head is far harder to visualise then a dog-man.
Beyond that I'm not a fan of using spells as racial traits, much prefer racial traits to be their own unique thing even they're based on a spell. But that is not just an Aardling thing so.
Despite my defense of their existence, I actually agree. Not really a fan of them mechanically. Flavor opportunity is awesome though.
Well I'm pretty sure the Ardlings are intended for Planescape and they've just lumped it in with the core rules UA because they can (see literally all the UA in the past few years)...
So do you expect them to also add a new race of humanoids with heritage from the lower planes that have different innate spells than tieflings and no horns, then expect us to take them seriously as anything but new variants of tieflings without horns? Because that's exactly what ardlings are relative to aasimar. Pointless reskins labeled as "new and exciting."
What if I don't like the racial options of aasimar? What if I do like the Ardling ones?
Again with people not reading anything other than "furries bad" from my post. I've said repeatedly, including right there in the text you quoted in bold text, that you could easily just take those rules for ardlings and make them new lineages for the pre-existing aasimar race and you get the new rules without putting taco sauce on a hot dog and calling it a fiesta sausage.
Please at least pay attention to what someone is saying before you try to poke holes in their statements. You won't look nearly as petty or foolish that way.
A new lineage would still have all of the aasimar traits tied to it. What if I don't like it? What if I think aasimar are dumb and shouldn't exist and I shouldn't have to play one for my holy raccoon man who flies?
Also please stop attacking me as a person and focus on my argument, I know I am heavily flawed, my argument is less so.
@Mezzurah: I am literally saying that you can use the exact same rules as ardlings and call them new aasimar lineages. "Use the exact same rules" means mechanically identical. The only difference is one has an animal head and a fur coat. I'm beginning to seriously wonder if you're inebriated because I can't think of any other reason you do not understand the meaning of the phrase "exact same rules."
And I'm saying you can't, because they aren't the same rules. Are they similar? Arguably yes, though mechanically there's still enough to make them distinct. If you think they need more distinction, then fair enough, but you keep repeating an assertion that's demonstrably wrong, and that's really the crux of the issue here.
Also, I suggest you try and engage people respectfully, which you have consistently failed to do throughout this entire conversation.
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.
Another thing, by making an orc PC not half Orc you are instantly breaking down the ideas of alignment, not all orcs are evil because you can have an orc good character. It helps to subtly shift ideas and thoughts in new players and Dms
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.
Well yes, you can have background features that the DM and you work out together homebrew, but you can build an entire game from scratch that way too.
If "No benefit whatsoever" assumes that you have replaced them with something else that provides the same benefit, I would argue that you clearly do believe they have benefits. You just don't like those benefits being attached to stock backgrounds.
You, as a DM, can't seem to agree that backgrounds merit such abilities, while simultaneously arguing that backgrounds can merit such abilities.
Also, "The university gave me bountiful knowledge; I'll do what I can to enrich and protect it" is quite different, in that the character already has such knowledge, which theoretically should bypass most skill checks involving such knowledge. Then the onus on the DM goes from 'Well, here is where you should adventure to find the answers' to 'Here are sufficient answers to make your additional knowledge believable.' You see the difference there? It also turns it from player agency ("I am going to research this!) to completely DM controlled ('You know THIS').
This has simply taken the rules in Tasha and expanded on them. You will have a selection of pre created backgrounds in the book, but, if you want you can create your own as well using a template. This is no different to the Tasha rules that allowed floating ASIs and the swapping of proficiencies, feats, languages and even abilities to some extent. It is just the natural step you take ASIs out of race selection all together and your background becomes far more flexible and, most importantly, balanced.
But it also doesn’t take away player agency, just because a character isn’t the research background doesn’t then stop them being able to make a history check, or ask if they can research in the local library. The PCs at my table do that right now and there is not a scribe or researcher amongst them.
Finally, no coming from a university does not then negate history rolls, it might lower the DC or give you the low hanging fruit even if you whiff the roll but you don’t know “everything” at level 1 and by level 20 you know the things your character has learnt along the way.
ASI's come from Backgrounds in this and you still have the option of the three +1's. It's on page 11.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Restating that you are against people having options for characters. And implying discontentment that people have joy over these things. Noted.
Still not seeing a good reason other than "I don't like them" as to why they don't exist.
Gee, Flush, it's almost as if it's playtest material! *GASP* Shocker! Imagine that! Whoever knew that playtest material might be...UNFINISHED?!?!?!?!
I could write a whole lore blurb about how Aasimar draw their abilities from an angelic Deva with whom they maintain a constant connection, whereas Ardlings draw their powers from the interactions their ancestors had with the divine animalistic Archons of yore in the same way Tieflings draw theirs' from interactions their ancestors had with fiends, but really all that proves is that I have the imagination to support a wider variety of character options.
How about I sell you the ultimate TTRPG sourcebook with the most options possibly available? It looks like a blank notebook, but you have the option of filling it with anything you desire. The options are limitless, and you can even draw a picture of a raccoon man and write about how he can fly almost as good as a mildly overweight chicken!
The point, Flush, is that playtest documents have a relative bare minimum of L.O.R.E. in them because nobody's playtesting the lore. They're playtesting the general feel and mechanics. A lot of people have shown in the last couple of days that they hate furries and want them all to stop playing D&D. That feels a little harsh to me, especially since the furries will just transplant furryness onto the game's default species if they want anyways. If you don't think shifters have been an inlet for furries since Eberron dropped, I've got some bridgefront property for ye.
Regardless. Playtest document. Specifically, deliberately light on lore. For very good reasons.
Please do not contact or message me.
I guess what I meant is all of the "premade" backgrounds all seem to have a +2 +1 format. I see now that the three +1s is still an option though.
Allow me to phrase my point differently. Ardlings are pointless because the very same playtest document contains rules and precedent for making an identical character if you replace ardlings in the document with extra aasimar lineages.
I shall elaborate.
Aasimar lineages that are just innate spellcasting for abilities and a note that you trade out the darkvision and necrotic resistance for the chicken flight. Precedent for such alterations exist in the elven lineages.
Use the hybrid race rules. Father was an aasimar who had a one night stand with an awakened animal. It's cool because the liaison was consensual between two sentient beings. Character is mechanically an aasimar with one of the new lineages, and has physical traits inherited from their mother in the form of the appropriate animal head and fur/feathers/whatever.
Completely identical both aesthetically and mechanically to an ardling without making a new race that's literally just a reskinned aasimar and telling us it isn't.
Well I'm pretty sure the Ardlings are intended for Planescape and they've just lumped it in with the core rules UA because they can (see literally all the UA in the past few years)...
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Both these things can exist, and be narratively and mechanically distinct. Just like how Devils and Demons can both exist, and be narratively and mechanically distinct.
Also, I highly suggest you look up the lore on Archons in older editions (pre-4th). It's quite fascinating actually.
I just had a thought...I can't call it a good thought, but it's a thought. What if WotC chucks out FR and makes Planescape the default setting for 2024?
The Aardlings appearance is just a little jarring in my opinion. Don't know why but a man with a dog head is far harder to visualise then a dog-man.
Beyond that I'm not a fan of using spells as racial traits, much prefer racial traits to be their own unique thing even they're based on a spell. But that is not just an Aardling thing so.
They almost definitely are.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Meh.. TBH, I would not worry so much about this as a GM if they did not JUST redo a TON of monsters and yet some of the most iconic monsters don't have recharge powers. Example Orcs. I think I saw 6 orcs and 1 of those have a recharge power. this is a hesitant "well see, but initial thoughts are nope"
im gonna say it: I wish they were more toward what PF2e did. My biggest issue is that your choice of race means nothing past the first level pick an overwhelming amount of the time. Not only do you NOT get more dwarfy as you level up, but you don't have any more choices as to how your dwarfiness manifests as you level up. PF2e does this in excellent way with specific picks at specific levels of "pick a racial feat choice" with meaningful choices to make you more dwarfy.
I don't so much care about the whole dwarf culture break down for hill/mountain dwarf, but damn it matters for things like say duegar for example(at least in my mind) or deep gnomes.
meh.
Every single one of the last 6 sessions since I joined an existing campaign that started at 4th level. Every single session, across four different locations. Ruins are everywhere. I picked Architect and I used Historical Knowledge in every single session so far. Now that won't be possible in every session going forward, but it sure was useful so far. And my GM knowing my personal quest is to find ruins and catalog them for history, he will know put more dungeons into the game. Now, to be fair, one of the locations was an abandoned Bard College and our Bard was able to glean even MORE information than I was but that's beside the point. I like dungeons both as a PC as well as a player of the game, dungeons are cool.
I certainly like the level 1 feats and HOPE that means some of the existing OP feats such as Great Weapons Master are moved to like say level 8 or 12 or whatever. And for hte love of all the holy or unholy whatevers don't make me choose between a feat and an ASI as the only options. If you want to make feats stay option, that's fine, but make the character sheet work with your "optional rules variants" and make feats optional AND give picks that are not tied to level 4/8/etc ASI picks as "pick only one of these things".
Now you're just making a fool of yourself.
1) Apparently you haven't actually even read the ardling rules. I'm referring to their Angelic Flight racial trait. They can fly their walking speed for one round at a time, and if they're airborne at the end of their movement they immediately fall. Fun fact, chickens aren't truly flightless; they just can't fly well because they lack the wing strength to stay aloft for more than a few seconds. But they can often cover thirty feet horizontally in such a flight. They rarely get higher than maybe ten feet, but their frantic flapping is still enough that they could land without injury from the thirty feet that an ardling will get to by flying straight up before immediately taking 3d6 fall damage so I say it's fair to say the two capabilities are comparable.
2) Please tell me where in my post I said anything about the examples I gave being new and never seen before? Those Spelljammer races were "new" to 5e as much as the ardlings are because there weren't official 5e rules for them prior to that publication. My entire point was that we already have more than a dozen furry races without needing a reskinned aasimar to add more.
Devils and demons are narratively and mechanically distinct. My example and an ardling as written are mechanically identical, and aesthetically they're both humanoids with celestial heritage and physical features of an animal. You want to use something like a hound archon instead of an awakened animal as one of the parents and have the other be a human/dwarf/etc? Go ahead, you still get a humanoid animal person with celestial heritage andthe stats of what can be a new aasimar lineage.
To put it yet another way, using an analogy. If I put taco sauce on a hot dog and tell you it's a "fiesta sausage" you're probably going to be able to quickly discern that it's just a hot dog with taco sauce on it. An ardling is just an aasimar with an animal head and it's absurd to insist it's anything more.
At least with the endless parade of variant elves we get something dif- oh no, wait. This is exactly like yet another elven subrace/lineage but now we're putting fur on it and calling it a gwotling.
Did that for over 20 years my dude. Created my own player handbook, class book, spellbook, and 3 custom worlds. Me and 10 of my friends spent 2 decades building everything we wanted and you know what? Its a lot of work. I much prefer having 50% of that stuff done for me.
What if I don't like the racial options of aasimar? What if I do like the Ardling ones?
Despite my defense of their existence, I actually agree. Not really a fan of them mechanically. Flavor opportunity is awesome though.
So do you expect them to also add a new race of humanoids with heritage from the lower planes that have different innate spells than tieflings and no horns, then expect us to take them seriously as anything but new variants of tieflings without horns? Because that's exactly what ardlings are relative to aasimar. Pointless reskins labeled as "new and exciting."
A new lineage would still have all of the aasimar traits tied to it. What if I don't like it? What if I think aasimar are dumb and shouldn't exist and I shouldn't have to play one for my holy raccoon man who flies?
Also please stop attacking me as a person and focus on my argument, I know I am heavily flawed, my argument is less so.
And I'm saying you can't, because they aren't the same rules. Are they similar? Arguably yes, though mechanically there's still enough to make them distinct. If you think they need more distinction, then fair enough, but you keep repeating an assertion that's demonstrably wrong, and that's really the crux of the issue here.
Also, I suggest you try and engage people respectfully, which you have consistently failed to do throughout this entire conversation.
Another thing, by making an orc PC not half Orc you are instantly breaking down the ideas of alignment, not all orcs are evil because you can have an orc good character. It helps to subtly shift ideas and thoughts in new players and Dms
This has simply taken the rules in Tasha and expanded on them. You will have a selection of pre created backgrounds in the book, but, if you want you can create your own as well using a template. This is no different to the Tasha rules that allowed floating ASIs and the swapping of proficiencies, feats, languages and even abilities to some extent. It is just the natural step you take ASIs out of race selection all together and your background becomes far more flexible and, most importantly, balanced.
But it also doesn’t take away player agency, just because a character isn’t the research background doesn’t then stop them being able to make a history check, or ask if they can research in the local library. The PCs at my table do that right now and there is not a scribe or researcher amongst them.
Finally, no coming from a university does not then negate history rolls, it might lower the DC or give you the low hanging fruit even if you whiff the roll but you don’t know “everything” at level 1 and by level 20 you know the things your character has learnt along the way.