I don't really get why people are getting so pissy about what is in the PHB. Literally who gives a shit? If they want to put Ardlings in there so what? Who cares what has and hasn't been in there previously. It's a game book, not some religious text. They put what they think people will enjoy playing. And if they're even half as enjoyable to play as a tiefling I'm all for them being there. Sure, sure, they're going to include all the generic shit like dwarves and elves and humans, but I'm all for some non-standard stuff the spice things up.
Tieflings were part of standard D&D lore for 2 decades before they evolved to be playable races.
Technically, not completely correct. Tieflings were first introduced in 1994 in the Planescape Campaign Setting and were directly playable there. It took until 4E to get them in the Player's Handbook.
So it's logical for tieflings to appear in a side book and be brought into the phb later for all settings, but it's not okay to make a new race?
Ardlings don't appeal to me personally, I doubt I'll ever make an ardling PC. But they dont' feel any more out of place to me than tieflings do in a tolkein esque fantasy world when you don't give the tieflings the excuse of having been around for a while.
So it's logical for tieflings to appear in a side book and be brought into the phb later for all settings, but it's not okay to make a new race?
D&D players knew what Tieflings were, they had already decided by then that they like Tieflings, players had already been running Tieflings for years by that point even before it was in the player's handbook.
Putting them in a publicly released rules document, years ahead of the new PHB, seems like the perfect move, then.
In a sense yes.. sort of. Like I'm not a fan of packing races created for setting A into setting B, but if your going to do it. If you are going to take Tieflings from Planescape and pencil them into the Players Handbook and spread it into othe settings, at the very least make sure that Tieflings are something that is built into the consciousness of D&D players. That its something familiar, something that does not require explanation.
When Tieflings were added to the Players Handbook, by that time they had appeared in multiple places, D&D players knew what Tieflings were, they had already decided by then that they like Tieflings, players had already been running Tieflings for years by that point even before it was in the player's handbook. In a sense, Tieflings where D&D culture, adding them at that point didn't even require any design.. the design of Tieflings was already done, it required no additional lore, the lore already existed. No one picked up the Players Handbook and was like.. what is a Tiefling!?
That is what a natural, evolution of a game looks like.
I've been playing D&D off and on since 1981, and I'd never* heard of Tieflings before picking up 4th edition. And you know what? It didn't matter.
Most people who play D&D, even those who've been doing it for ages, are not into the deep lore. They don't get most of the sourcebooks. They don't read the novels. And I'm pretty sure that their reaction to a new race in the PHB is either "Cool!" or "Eh, it doesn't fit the character I want to build." The latter may warm to it later, or they may not. (Personally, I don't care about gnomes, and never have. That's fine. I've got other options.)
The idea that the core books of D&D must reflect a specific model of sort-of-Tolkienian fantasy, and only that? That's mostly just you. It certainly supports it, so most people who want it can just set aside the parts they aren't using. And, given that fantasy in general has been moving further and further from Tolkien for ages, there's a lot to be said for making sure D&D supports stuff beyond Tolkien pastiche right out of the box. (Really, D&D became its own genre pretty much immediately, and like all genres, it has changed over time.)
* Not quite true, since I'd played Planescape: Torment, but I'd totally forgotten them.
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.
It should have been assimar. I also don't like the new race. If it were more of an Egyptian setting I'd be fine with it but no.
I would always rather have a new race than a reprint of an old one. It doesn’t matter where that comes from, be it a core book, sourcebook, adventure, random D&D Beyond exclusive content, whatever - more races simply means more options.
D&D makes it really easy to just play with what you want. Want to say “I only want 1e races in my game?” DMs can do that in the interest of their world building. Want to play as an Aasimar even though it is not in the PHB? You can get the race for two bucks on D&D Beyond without having to purchase a full rule book. The only people who lose with the introduction of a new race - regardless of where introduced - are the Scrooges who want to force their (usually wrong) idea of “D&D purity” on other folks, and they’d do that tomfoolery regardless of whether the race is in a core book or other source.
This is funny. There was a time you read dwarf for the first time, there was a time you read orc for the first time and there was a time you read about Tieflings for the first time. The fact that just because it is new that it is not a natural evolution is just outright idiotic. It is new, but it evolved naturally from the need and desire for an exotic race to be the celestial counterpart to the Tiefling. It wouldn't exist at all in play test material or anywhere else if this perceived need didn't exist.
You're trying to make it sound like I have some sort of extreme position but you're comparing outrageously different things and you are obviously doing it on purpose. You don't actually buy any of that right?
The first time I heard about Dwarfs and Orcs was in the Lord of the Rings books long before playing D&D, Tieflings were part of standard D&D lore for 2 decades before they evolved to be playable races. When they were released, D&D players already knew everything there was to know about them.
The first time I or anyone heard of Ardlings was a few days ago before that they simply did not exist. The only thing we know about Ardlings today is what is in the playtest document.. that's it. There is nothing before it or since..: They don't exist in any lore, they are not part of any setting.. they are not part of the D&D consciousness. How is that an evolution of anything?
New does not mean "unnatural" you understand that correct? That just because it is new doesn't mean it doesn't belong . Everything about the NEW players handbook is new. It is an EVOLUTION OF THE GAME OF DND. The GAME DnD NEEDED a racial counterpart to the tiefling that looked more exotic. What part of this do you not get? Do you honestly think they threw darts at the board to come up with Ardling. That the Ardling did not EVOLVE from the NEED for an exotic racial counterpart to the tiefling in the players handbook. That is evolution, it creates NEW THINGS in a response to a NEED. Ardlings are a natural evolution to the game. The Players Handbook serves as MORE than the JUST the core of the game. It serves and INTRO to new players to the world of DnD. New players have no familiarity with the history of DnD and whether it has a history is meaningless to whether fits into the core rulebook or not. The question that needs to be asked is "Does it fit with the other races in the core rulebook?" The answer to that, is a resounding yes because teiflings are in the book and they fit right along side them. Then ask the question "Does it serve as a good introduction mythology of DnD?" Again yes, because this fantasy table top RPG has a plethora of pantheons it pulls from, so having a celestial race that is varied as the pantheon it pulls from is BETTER than having a celestial race that just pulls from Judeo-Christian mythology. Finally, with their new objectives to make it where people can play any race as any class or background "Does this races abilities overly favor one type of class, or background over another?" maybe the casters since casters basically just get more spells this way, but that would be useful feedback rather than. "I DONT WANT NEW THINGS IN THE NEW PLAYERS HANDBOOK, JUST GIVE ME THE OLD PLAYERS HANDBOOK."
Thankfully forum goers aren't the only players and there is such a tiny outspoken group against the Ardlings even on forums and reddits. They will listen to feedback. Ardlings will make it in, and it will be better for a majority of people in the long run.
I've been playing D&D off and on since 1981, and I'd never* heard of Tieflings before picking up 4th edition. And you know what? It didn't matter.
I can understand that if you are not a long-term participating player but Tieflings have appeared in every edition of the game since 2nd edition. They were a playable race in 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th editions. They appeared for the first time in the Players Handbook (core book) in 4th edition.
Yeah, and I played 2nd and 3rd, and didn't see any Tieflings. The idea that players won't accept a new addition unless it's already well-established ignores that, for most players, nothing outside of the core books is well-established. What matters for acceptance is whether it grabs players' interest. And, without all the chrome material that's not part of playtest (and shouldn't be), that's impossible to judge.
New does not mean "unnatural" you understand that correct? That just because it is new doesn't mean it doesn't belong . Everything about the NEW players handbook is new. It is an EVOLUTION OF THE GAME OF DND. The GAME DnD NEEDED a racial counterpart to the tiefling that looked more exotic. What part of this do you not get? Do you honestly think they threw darts at the board to come up with Ardling. That the Ardling did not EVOLVE from the NEED for an exotic racial counterpart to the tiefling in the players handbook. That is evolution, it creates NEW THINGS in a response to a NEED. Ardlings are a natural evolution to the game.
I will have to respectfully agree to disagree. I can only hope that the pasting WotC got with 4e listening to the cult of the new is still fresh in their minds when 6e is finalized.
Agree to disagree. I hope WotC will listen to the feedback and be inclusive to both new and old players with this evolution of 5e, by providing old players something new to play with and new players a long needed counterpart to a popular race and an introduction to the larger pantheon of DnD to make the book feel complete instead of feeling like something is missing like the current PHB feels. Thankfully, the forums are a very small sample size of the larger world of DnD and even here, those speaking out against new options are in the minority.
Edit: I do still find it funny that you honestly think they threw darts at a board and that this race wasn't created with any purpose at all.
This is funny. There was a time you read dwarf for the first time, there was a time you read orc for the first time and there was a time you read about Tieflings for the first time. The fact that just because it is new that it is not a natural evolution is just outright idiotic. It is new, but it evolved naturally from the need and desire for an exotic race to be the celestial counterpart to the Tiefling. It wouldn't exist at all in play test material or anywhere else if this perceived need didn't exist.
You're trying to make it sound like I have some sort of extreme position but you're comparing outrageously different things and you are obviously doing it on purpose. You don't actually buy any of that right?
The first time I heard about Dwarfs and Orcs was in the Lord of the Rings books long before playing D&D, Tieflings were part of standard D&D lore for 2 decades before they evolved to be playable races. When they were released, D&D players already knew everything there was to know about them.
The first time I or anyone heard of Ardlings was a few days ago before that they simply did not exist. The only thing we know about Ardlings today is what is in the playtest document.. that's it. There is nothing before it or since..: They don't exist in any lore, they are not part of any setting.. they are not part of the D&D consciousness. How is that an evolution of anything?
Guess what? What races get added to the PHB doesn't have to be founded on tradition.
Dragonborn are a fairly new addition to the PHB, becoming a main race in 4e after kind of existing in 3.5e. They very much weren't a part of the "D&D consciousness" before that. However, they quickly became one of the most popular races in the game, because this is a game called "Dungeons and Dragons" and it makes sense to have a playable race based on dragons in the core rulebooks.
The same thing could happen with Ardlings. They're not completely new in concept, they're obviously based on the animal-headed celestials from the Upper Planes (Guardinals, some of the Archons, the beasts of the Beastlands). They could become a super popular race. We don't know yet.
Your insistence that "tradition" is the only worthwhile consideration when it comes to what should and shouldn't be included in the PHB is shortsighted and stupid. If the PHB has Tieflings, then a celestial counterpart is a logical conclusion, and tying that celestial counterpart to the celestial beasts from the Great Wheel makes sense. I personally believe that Ardlings could be fairly easily merged with the Aasimar and become a more interesting race due to that combination, but personally have no objection to a completely new race being added to the PHB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
This is funny. There was a time you read dwarf for the first time, there was a time you read orc for the first time and there was a time you read about Tieflings for the first time. The fact that just because it is new that it is not a natural evolution is just outright idiotic. It is new, but it evolved naturally from the need and desire for an exotic race to be the celestial counterpart to the Tiefling. It wouldn't exist at all in play test material or anywhere else if this perceived need didn't exist.
You're trying to make it sound like I have some sort of extreme position but you're comparing outrageously different things and you are obviously doing it on purpose. You don't actually buy any of that right?
The first time I heard about Dwarfs and Orcs was in the Lord of the Rings books long before playing D&D, Tieflings were part of standard D&D lore for 2 decades before they evolved to be playable races. When they were released, D&D players already knew everything there was to know about them.
The first time I or anyone heard of Ardlings was a few days ago before that they simply did not exist. The only thing we know about Ardlings today is what is in the playtest document.. that's it. There is nothing before it or since..: They don't exist in any lore, they are not part of any setting.. they are not part of the D&D consciousness. How is that an evolution of anything?
Guess what? What races get added to the PHB doesn't have to be founded on tradition.
Dragonborn are a fairly new addition to the PHB, becoming a main race in 4e after kind of existing in 3.5e. They very much weren't a part of the "D&D consciousness" before that. However, they quickly became one of the most popular races in the game, because this is a game called "Dungeons and Dragons" and it makes sense to have a playable race based on dragons in the core rulebooks.
The same thing could happen with Ardlings. They're not completely new in concept, they're obviously based on the animal-headed celestials from the Upper Planes (Guardinals, some of the Archons, the beasts of the Beastlands). They could become a super popular race. We don't know yet.
Your insistence that "tradition" is the only worthwhile consideration when it comes to what should and shouldn't be included in the PHB is shortsighted and stupid. If the PHB has Tieflings, then a celestial counterpart is a logical conclusion, and tying that celestial counterpart to the celestial beasts from the Great Wheel makes sense. I personally believe that Ardlings could be fairly easily merged with the Aasimar and become a more interesting race due to that combination, but personally have no objection to a completely new race being added to the PHB.
So I did want to note something I don't know if people caught, but you can make a half human, half ardling and make the race look more human with ardling abilities and still have a sort of psuedo Aasimar. This also works with other half races. Like Half Ardling, Half Orc, and you look more orcish and now Celestial orc. The half race rules allow for a lot of customization on character appearance, and having a race like Ardlings helps with a lot of that. Like say someone wants a lion character, but doesn't want the celestial stuff. Half Ardling Half Dwarf, look more like an Ardling with a lions head and fur along his back and shoulders, but get things like tremor sense and forge from dwarf.
Dragonborn are a fairly new addition to the PHB, becoming a main race in 4e after kind of existing in 3.5e. They very much weren't a part of the "D&D consciousness" before that.
If you don't know your D&D history that is fine, it's not a requirement to have a civil conversation, but don't talk about it as if you are an expert in that case and try to scold me about it.
The first Dragonborn appeared in the original Dragonlance setting, it was one of the most iconic villain races in all of D&D at the time in one of the most iconic settings in D&D. It might not be in your consciousness because you don't know your D&D which is not a crime, but Dragonborn are a fundamental legacy in the game. Hell in the 5e players handbook (your book) they even put a little green box for you on the Dragonborn write-up explaining this legacy which by the way was not an accidental addition. The writers understood how important it was to maintain the history of D&D and ensure its legacy is not abandoned or forgotten.
No, those are Draconians. They're very different, and even WotC has stated in interviews that Dragonborn started in 3.5e. They have some connections to Draconians and 5e Dragonlance may very well merge the two, but Dragonborn, as we know them today, are a new concept compared to the other PHB races. And the person complaining about being "scolded" (when I did no such thing) is speaking in a very patronizing tone.
Your insistence that "tradition" is the only worthwhile consideration when it comes to what should and shouldn't be included in the PHB is shortsighted and stupid. If the PHB has Tieflings, then a celestial counterpart is a logical conclusion, and tying that celestial counterpart to the celestial beasts from the Great Wheel makes sense. I personally believe that Ardlings could be fairly easily merged with the Aasimar and become a more interesting race due to that combination, but personally have no objection to a completely new race being added to the PHB.
It's a gross and intentional misinterpretation of what I said, you're not scoring any points my making stuff up and I would appreciate you not calling me stupid.
I will say it again for posterity. D&D evolution as a game stems from the introduction of material through expanded content beyond the core rulebook. Dragonborn for example weren't simply invented for the 4e core rulebook. They were established into D&D culture through a setting, through novels, through the monster manual, through expanded splash books and finally and only when they were an established, already loved entity in the game, Wizards of the Coast put them into the core rulebook and it was a huge success.
This process is not just about tradition, it's about fairness to the community. Don't use the core rules of the game as a testing ground for your nonsense. Maybe one day Ardlings will be an established part of D&D, but it isn't going to happen this way. I guarantee you that Ardlings will become the Jar-Jar Binks of D&D if they find their way into the final release of 6e. It will just be a punchline to a terrible joke played on the community for which I promise you WotC will be apologizing. It's the most asinine thing I have seen WotC suggest since they took over D&D, and they have had some doozies in the past.
"Fairness to the community" *eyeroll*
How the in the name of Orcus is it "unfair to the community" to add a new race to the game?!?! I swear D&D's fanbase is the whiniest I've ever seen, and I know of quite a few very whiny fanbases. They'll even complain and make a fuss when a new race is added. Jesus Christ, what did WotC do to you? Did they murder your puppy? Did they break into your house and force you to play an Ardling?
I don't use these phrases lightly due to how often they're used to dismiss actual problems that people experience, but this is making a mountain out of a molehill. The world's smallest violin. "I don't like this race, so it shouldn't be in this book".
P.S. I didn't call you stupid. I called your argument and complaints stupid. That's a huge difference. Everyone makes stupid arguments from time to time. I have in the past. That doesn't make you or me stupid, it just means that you're human and have made flawed arguments.
Dragonborn are a fairly new addition to the PHB, becoming a main race in 4e after kind of existing in 3.5e. They very much weren't a part of the "D&D consciousness" before that.
If you don't know your D&D history that is fine, it's not a requirement to have a civil conversation, but don't talk about it as if you are an expert in that case and try to scold me about it.
Knowing D&D history is not necessary for a civil conversation, but both being civil and engaging in a conversation are necessary. An overly snarky post, as yours was, fails the civil component; putting words in the other person’s mouth rather than responding to them fails the second half (you were responding to someone talking about the specific playable race, and decidedly different not provide an answer related to that race).
It also does not help your case or your appeal to your own alleged knowledge of D&D history that you are simply wrong. There were dragonkin, such as the Draconians of Dragonlance (which you have confused for Dragonborn) in earlier editions and half-dragons as a playable race, but Dragonborn as they exist today were introduce in 2006 in a supplemental 3e product. They did not become a mainstay until their inclusion as a primary playable race in 4e and their continued status as a core race in 5e.
Verging on ridiculous. It breaks the immersion for me.
Interesting take.
"I cast 'Reverse Gravity' and send the cube of adventurer-devouring gelatin to the sky! Next the Druid turns into a Fire Elemental and the Halfling bard creates a giant floating hand through the power of music! Great game everyo....wait, why does that character have a hawk head?! This all seems so unrealistic now."
No, those are Draconians. They're very different, and even WotC has stated in interviews that Dragonborn started in 3.5e.
I laughed so hard you made beer shoot out of my nose... I would love to see that video! Which one of these pinheads had the balls to claim they invented Dragonborn.. My money is on Mike Mearls, he was always spouting BS..
Knowing D&D history is not necessary for a civil conversation, but both being civil and engaging in a conversation are necessary. An overly snarky post, as yours was, fails the civil component; putting words in the other person’s mouth rather than responding to them fails the second half (you were responding to someone talking about the specific playable race, and decidedly different not provide an answer related to that race).
It also does not help your case or your appeal to your own alleged knowledge of D&D history that you are simply wrong. There were dragonkin, such as the Draconians of Dragonlance (which you have confused for Dragonborn) in earlier editions and half-dragons as a playable race, but Dragonborn as they exist today were introduce in 2006 in a supplemental 3e product. They did not become a mainstay until their inclusion as a primary playable race in 4e and their continued status as a core race in 5e.
Ok, I'm going to quote Wizards of the Coast for you.. their words, from the 5e players handbook. This is their explanation of what Draconians are.
"In the Dragonlance setting, the followers of the evil goddess Takhisis learned a dark ritual that let them corrupt the eggs of metalic dragons, producing evil Dragonborn called draconians. Five types of draconians, corresponding to the five types of metallic dragons, fought for Takhisis in the war of the lance."
Are we done here? Wizards of the Coast, in the 5th edition Players Handbook, explains where Dragonborn are originally from. Is this sufficient proof are we going to try to spin this another way?
Look dude.. just be wrong.. its ok to be wrong and its even ok not like me because I proved you wrong, but don't be willfully ignorant, it's just... it makes me sad.
Yes. You have done very good at quoting a 5e source which retroactively changes something about earlier editions in an effort to create homogeny within 5e…. And using this 5e retcon try and say they have always been that way. If you cannot see how silly it is to argue “but this retcon proves my point about the past” either you have come unstuck in time, live in an Orwellian world where retcons can change history itself, or, most likely, should try not drinking beer when posting on the forums, as you indicate you were doing.
So no one has yet really to really give me a good reason why it matters which races are put into the PHB. It all seems to boil down to 'tradition for traditions sake' which isn't really a good enough reason to care imo.
I actually think it was Chris Perkins or Jeremy Crawford. However, I cannot find the video. If I can find it, I'll send you a link.
And they did invent Dragonborn. Dragonborn are a new concept. The fact that Half-Dragons or Draconians existed before WotC bought D&D doesn't invalidate that. This would be like claiming that WotC didn't invent Swordmages because the Elf used to be a spellsword class. Sure, they have some big similarities (Draconians and Dragonborn are humanoid dragons, Swordmages and the Elf class are spellswords). But Dragonborn as presented in 3.5e, 4e, and 5e are very distinct from Draconians. You should know that because apparently, you're the one that "knows D&D history" in this conversation, not me.
Knowing D&D history is not necessary for a civil conversation, but both being civil and engaging in a conversation are necessary. An overly snarky post, as yours was, fails the civil component; putting words in the other person’s mouth rather than responding to them fails the second half (you were responding to someone talking about the specific playable race, and decidedly different not provide an answer related to that race).
It also does not help your case or your appeal to your own alleged knowledge of D&D history that you are simply wrong. There were dragonkin, such as the Draconians of Dragonlance (which you have confused for Dragonborn) in earlier editions and half-dragons as a playable race, but Dragonborn as they exist today were introduce in 2006 in a supplemental 3e product. They did not become a mainstay until their inclusion as a primary playable race in 4e and their continued status as a core race in 5e.
Ok, I'm going to quote Wizards of the Coast for you.. their words, from the 5e players handbook. This is their explanation of what Draconians
Ok, I'm going to quote Wizards of the Coast for you.. their words, from the 5e players handbook. This is their explanation of what Draconians are.
"In the Dragonlance setting, the followers of the evil goddess Takhisis learned a dark ritual that let them corrupt the eggs of metalic dragons, producing evil Dragonborn called draconians. Five types of draconians, corresponding to the five types of metallic dragons, fought for Takhisis in the war of the lance."
[REDACTED] Wizards of the Coast, in the 5th edition Players Handbook, explains where Dragonborn are originally from. Is this sufficient proof or are we going to try to spin this another way?
[REDACTED]
As I said in an earlier post, in 5e they may very well merge Draconians and Dragonborn because they're pretty similar in concept (being draconic humanoids and all). However, they are still distinct. Dragonborn get breath weapons and different features depending on whether they're Chromatic, Metallic, or Gem (in the most recent official version of them). And Draconicans in their most recent representation in the game (Fizban's monster stats for them) are not stated to be Dragonborn in lore or stat block.
Knock it off with the sneering condescension, will you please? If Dragonborn as we know them today weren't a new invention and were actually Draconians from the beginning, then Draconians would be the playable race in the PHB. They would all be called Draconians, have the 5 different subraces the Draconians had, and have that stupid origin story from Dragonlance.
Again, for the guy complaining about percieved "elitism" and "scolding", you're participating in more than your fair share in this conversation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Yes. You have done very good at quoting a 5e source which retroactively changes something about earlier editions to try and say they have always been that way. If you cannot see how silly it is to argue “but this retcon proves my point about the past” either you have come unstuck in time, live in an Orwellian world where retcons can change history itself, or, most likely, should try not drinking beer when posting on the forums, as you indicate you were doing.
Ok I'm not sure I'm following you, are you saying I made that quote up, or are you saying that Wizards of the Coast lied in the Players Handbook in anticipation of our conversation to try to trick us? I'm just wondering how deep this conspiracy to disprove your theory goes. I think we should get to the bottom of it!
That's not what they're saying. They're saying that the previous versions of Dragonborn from 3.5e and 4e didn't give that same explanation of Dragonborn or Draconians, and so it's a retcon specific to 5e. Their changing of the Dragonborn lore in 5e to connect them more to Draconians doesn't somehow mean that they originated that way. It just means that the original 5e version has that connection.
Fizban's Treasury of Dragons even separates Dragoborn and Draconians as distinct creatures:
A draconian might be taken for a dragonborn at first glance, though most kinds of draconians have wings.
I don't really get why people are getting so pissy about what is in the PHB. Literally who gives a shit? If they want to put Ardlings in there so what? Who cares what has and hasn't been in there previously. It's a game book, not some religious text. They put what they think people will enjoy playing. And if they're even half as enjoyable to play as a tiefling I'm all for them being there. Sure, sure, they're going to include all the generic shit like dwarves and elves and humans, but I'm all for some non-standard stuff the spice things up.
Technically, not completely correct. Tieflings were first introduced in 1994 in the Planescape Campaign Setting and were directly playable there. It took until 4E to get them in the Player's Handbook.
So it's logical for tieflings to appear in a side book and be brought into the phb later for all settings, but it's not okay to make a new race?
Ardlings don't appeal to me personally, I doubt I'll ever make an ardling PC. But they dont' feel any more out of place to me than tieflings do in a tolkein esque fantasy world when you don't give the tieflings the excuse of having been around for a while.
Putting them in a publicly released rules document, years ahead of the new PHB, seems like the perfect move, then.
I've been playing D&D off and on since 1981, and I'd never* heard of Tieflings before picking up 4th edition. And you know what? It didn't matter.
Most people who play D&D, even those who've been doing it for ages, are not into the deep lore. They don't get most of the sourcebooks. They don't read the novels. And I'm pretty sure that their reaction to a new race in the PHB is either "Cool!" or "Eh, it doesn't fit the character I want to build." The latter may warm to it later, or they may not. (Personally, I don't care about gnomes, and never have. That's fine. I've got other options.)
The idea that the core books of D&D must reflect a specific model of sort-of-Tolkienian fantasy, and only that? That's mostly just you. It certainly supports it, so most people who want it can just set aside the parts they aren't using. And, given that fantasy in general has been moving further and further from Tolkien for ages, there's a lot to be said for making sure D&D supports stuff beyond Tolkien pastiche right out of the box. (Really, D&D became its own genre pretty much immediately, and like all genres, it has changed over time.)
* Not quite true, since I'd played Planescape: Torment, but I'd totally forgotten them.
It should have been assimar. I also don't like the new race. If it were more of an Egyptian setting I'd be fine with it but no.
I would always rather have a new race than a reprint of an old one. It doesn’t matter where that comes from, be it a core book, sourcebook, adventure, random D&D Beyond exclusive content, whatever - more races simply means more options.
D&D makes it really easy to just play with what you want. Want to say “I only want 1e races in my game?” DMs can do that in the interest of their world building. Want to play as an Aasimar even though it is not in the PHB? You can get the race for two bucks on D&D Beyond without having to purchase a full rule book. The only people who lose with the introduction of a new race - regardless of where introduced - are the Scrooges who want to force their (usually wrong) idea of “D&D purity” on other folks, and they’d do that tomfoolery regardless of whether the race is in a core book or other source.
New does not mean "unnatural" you understand that correct? That just because it is new doesn't mean it doesn't belong . Everything about the NEW players handbook is new. It is an EVOLUTION OF THE GAME OF DND. The GAME DnD NEEDED a racial counterpart to the tiefling that looked more exotic. What part of this do you not get? Do you honestly think they threw darts at the board to come up with Ardling. That the Ardling did not EVOLVE from the NEED for an exotic racial counterpart to the tiefling in the players handbook. That is evolution, it creates NEW THINGS in a response to a NEED. Ardlings are a natural evolution to the game.
The Players Handbook serves as MORE than the JUST the core of the game. It serves and INTRO to new players to the world of DnD. New players have no familiarity with the history of DnD and whether it has a history is meaningless to whether fits into the core rulebook or not. The question that needs to be asked is "Does it fit with the other races in the core rulebook?" The answer to that, is a resounding yes because teiflings are in the book and they fit right along side them. Then ask the question "Does it serve as a good introduction mythology of DnD?" Again yes, because this fantasy table top RPG has a plethora of pantheons it pulls from, so having a celestial race that is varied as the pantheon it pulls from is BETTER than having a celestial race that just pulls from Judeo-Christian mythology. Finally, with their new objectives to make it where people can play any race as any class or background "Does this races abilities overly favor one type of class, or background over another?" maybe the casters since casters basically just get more spells this way, but that would be useful feedback rather than. "I DONT WANT NEW THINGS IN THE NEW PLAYERS HANDBOOK, JUST GIVE ME THE OLD PLAYERS HANDBOOK."
Thankfully forum goers aren't the only players and there is such a tiny outspoken group against the Ardlings even on forums and reddits. They will listen to feedback. Ardlings will make it in, and it will be better for a majority of people in the long run.
Yeah, and I played 2nd and 3rd, and didn't see any Tieflings. The idea that players won't accept a new addition unless it's already well-established ignores that, for most players, nothing outside of the core books is well-established. What matters for acceptance is whether it grabs players' interest. And, without all the chrome material that's not part of playtest (and shouldn't be), that's impossible to judge.
Agree to disagree. I hope WotC will listen to the feedback and be inclusive to both new and old players with this evolution of 5e, by providing old players something new to play with and new players a long needed counterpart to a popular race and an introduction to the larger pantheon of DnD to make the book feel complete instead of feeling like something is missing like the current PHB feels. Thankfully, the forums are a very small sample size of the larger world of DnD and even here, those speaking out against new options are in the minority.
Edit: I do still find it funny that you honestly think they threw darts at a board and that this race wasn't created with any purpose at all.
Guess what? What races get added to the PHB doesn't have to be founded on tradition.
Dragonborn are a fairly new addition to the PHB, becoming a main race in 4e after kind of existing in 3.5e. They very much weren't a part of the "D&D consciousness" before that. However, they quickly became one of the most popular races in the game, because this is a game called "Dungeons and Dragons" and it makes sense to have a playable race based on dragons in the core rulebooks.
The same thing could happen with Ardlings. They're not completely new in concept, they're obviously based on the animal-headed celestials from the Upper Planes (Guardinals, some of the Archons, the beasts of the Beastlands). They could become a super popular race. We don't know yet.
Your insistence that "tradition" is the only worthwhile consideration when it comes to what should and shouldn't be included in the PHB is shortsighted and stupid. If the PHB has Tieflings, then a celestial counterpart is a logical conclusion, and tying that celestial counterpart to the celestial beasts from the Great Wheel makes sense. I personally believe that Ardlings could be fairly easily merged with the Aasimar and become a more interesting race due to that combination, but personally have no objection to a completely new race being added to the PHB.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
So I did want to note something I don't know if people caught, but you can make a half human, half ardling and make the race look more human with ardling abilities and still have a sort of psuedo Aasimar. This also works with other half races. Like Half Ardling, Half Orc, and you look more orcish and now Celestial orc. The half race rules allow for a lot of customization on character appearance, and having a race like Ardlings helps with a lot of that. Like say someone wants a lion character, but doesn't want the celestial stuff. Half Ardling Half Dwarf, look more like an Ardling with a lions head and fur along his back and shoulders, but get things like tremor sense and forge from dwarf.
No, those are Draconians. They're very different, and even WotC has stated in interviews that Dragonborn started in 3.5e. They have some connections to Draconians and 5e Dragonlance may very well merge the two, but Dragonborn, as we know them today, are a new concept compared to the other PHB races. And the person complaining about being "scolded" (when I did no such thing) is speaking in a very patronizing tone.
"Fairness to the community" *eyeroll*
How the in the name of Orcus is it "unfair to the community" to add a new race to the game?!?! I swear D&D's fanbase is the whiniest I've ever seen, and I know of quite a few very whiny fanbases. They'll even complain and make a fuss when a new race is added. Jesus Christ, what did WotC do to you? Did they murder your puppy? Did they break into your house and force you to play an Ardling?
I don't use these phrases lightly due to how often they're used to dismiss actual problems that people experience, but this is making a mountain out of a molehill. The world's smallest violin. "I don't like this race, so it shouldn't be in this book".
P.S. I didn't call you stupid. I called your argument and complaints stupid. That's a huge difference. Everyone makes stupid arguments from time to time. I have in the past. That doesn't make you or me stupid, it just means that you're human and have made flawed arguments.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Knowing D&D history is not necessary for a civil conversation, but both being civil and engaging in a conversation are necessary. An overly snarky post, as yours was, fails the civil component; putting words in the other person’s mouth rather than responding to them fails the second half (you were responding to someone talking about the specific playable race, and decidedly different not provide an answer related to that race).
It also does not help your case or your appeal to your own alleged knowledge of D&D history that you are simply wrong. There were dragonkin, such as the Draconians of Dragonlance (which you have confused for Dragonborn) in earlier editions and half-dragons as a playable race, but Dragonborn as they exist today were introduce in 2006 in a supplemental 3e product. They did not become a mainstay until their inclusion as a primary playable race in 4e and their continued status as a core race in 5e.
Interesting take.
"I cast 'Reverse Gravity' and send the cube of adventurer-devouring gelatin to the sky! Next the Druid turns into a Fire Elemental and the Halfling bard creates a giant floating hand through the power of music! Great game everyo....wait, why does that character have a hawk head?! This all seems so unrealistic now."
Yes. You have done very good at quoting a 5e source which retroactively changes something about earlier editions in an effort to create homogeny within 5e…. And using this 5e retcon try and say they have always been that way. If you cannot see how silly it is to argue “but this retcon proves my point about the past” either you have come unstuck in time, live in an Orwellian world where retcons can change history itself, or, most likely, should try not drinking beer when posting on the forums, as you indicate you were doing.
So no one has yet really to really give me a good reason why it matters which races are put into the PHB. It all seems to boil down to 'tradition for traditions sake' which isn't really a good enough reason to care imo.
I actually think it was Chris Perkins or Jeremy Crawford. However, I cannot find the video. If I can find it, I'll send you a link.
And they did invent Dragonborn. Dragonborn are a new concept. The fact that Half-Dragons or Draconians existed before WotC bought D&D doesn't invalidate that. This would be like claiming that WotC didn't invent Swordmages because the Elf used to be a spellsword class. Sure, they have some big similarities (Draconians and Dragonborn are humanoid dragons, Swordmages and the Elf class are spellswords). But Dragonborn as presented in 3.5e, 4e, and 5e are very distinct from Draconians. You should know that because apparently, you're the one that "knows D&D history" in this conversation, not me.
As I said in an earlier post, in 5e they may very well merge Draconians and Dragonborn because they're pretty similar in concept (being draconic humanoids and all). However, they are still distinct. Dragonborn get breath weapons and different features depending on whether they're Chromatic, Metallic, or Gem (in the most recent official version of them). And Draconicans in their most recent representation in the game (Fizban's monster stats for them) are not stated to be Dragonborn in lore or stat block.
Knock it off with the sneering condescension, will you please? If Dragonborn as we know them today weren't a new invention and were actually Draconians from the beginning, then Draconians would be the playable race in the PHB. They would all be called Draconians, have the 5 different subraces the Draconians had, and have that stupid origin story from Dragonlance.
Again, for the guy complaining about percieved "elitism" and "scolding", you're participating in more than your fair share in this conversation.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I wish I could unsubscribe from a thread using the mobile site.
That's not what they're saying. They're saying that the previous versions of Dragonborn from 3.5e and 4e didn't give that same explanation of Dragonborn or Draconians, and so it's a retcon specific to 5e. Their changing of the Dragonborn lore in 5e to connect them more to Draconians doesn't somehow mean that they originated that way. It just means that the original 5e version has that connection.
Fizban's Treasury of Dragons even separates Dragoborn and Draconians as distinct creatures:
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms