And if you liked to play aasimart, you're a furry now if you want to do it RAW."
Aasimar aren't going away. MMM is supposed to go with the 2024 core books, and MMM has the aasimar.
yeah, if you watch the Origins video, Crawford specifically states that Aardlings are being ADDED, and not replacing Aasimar. So you celestial, fiendish, and now nature based quasi-divine races
And if you liked to play aasimart, you're a furry now if you want to do it RAW."
Aasimar aren't going away. MMM is supposed to go with the 2024 core books, and MMM has the aasimar.
yeah, if you watch the Origins video, Crawford specifically states that Aardlings are being ADDED, and not replacing Aasimar. So you celestial, fiendish, and now nature based quasi-divine races
See this is also a great thing then. Now you can play your stereotypical golden haired angel archetype, or something with of a different culture with the same feel. Goes a long way for inclusion.
My main issue with them is that what they are supposed to be thematically, a mystic, divine servant of an animal-like, semi divine, semi primal god when compared to what they are mechanically, a watered down Aasimar. If I were to just look at the Ardling's mechanics, I would think this is an attempt at an Aasimar revision, not what they're going for. In addition, the Ardling is very broad, the 1000 ways the lore allows you to flavor it makes it honestly hard to implement into a campaign setting. When a DM is thinking celestial, another is thinking mongoose man, and another player is thinking rainbow frog, the players won't be happy when they hear that the DM's setting version is much more celestial-like.
Well, what it's actually doing is drawing on the Archon celestials of older edition, many of which were animal headed beings of good alignment. Now, my knowledge of them is fuzzy at best, but my memory of them from 2e monster manuals seems to recall them as being a good-aligned counterpoint to the lawful evil devils. Kinda makes me wonder if the Archons are going to make a comeback?
My main issue with them is that what they are supposed to be thematically, a mystic, divine servant of an animal-like, semi divine, semi primal god when compared to what they are mechanically, a watered down Aasimar. If I were to just look at the Ardling's mechanics, I would think this is an attempt at an Aasimar revision, not what they're going for. In addition, the Ardling is very broad, the 1000 ways the lore allows you to flavor it makes it honestly hard to implement into a campaign setting. When a DM is thinking celestial, another is thinking mongoose man, and another player is thinking rainbow frog, the players won't be happy when they hear that the DM's setting version is much more celestial-like.
I can see that, but this should be something discussed in a session zero when explaining the setting. You have to do the same exact thing now when choosing a god for a cleric, you can't worship rainbow frog if there's no rainbow frog.
Well, what it's actually doing is drawing on the Archon celestials of older edition, many of which were animal headed beings of good alignment. Now, my knowledge of them is fuzzy at best, but my memory of them from 2e monster manuals seems to recall them as being a good-aligned counterpoint to the lawful evil devils. Kinda makes me wonder if the Archons are going to make a comeback?
This. I outlined it in my many-pointed wall of text a while back. You are correct. I think it would be nice to see an archon comeback, but I am- unsuprisingly- a huge fan of all things celestial.
My main issue with them is that what they are supposed to be thematically, a mystic, divine servant of an animal-like, semi divine, semi primal god when compared to what they are mechanically, a watered down Aasimar. If I were to just look at the Ardling's mechanics, I would think this is an attempt at an Aasimar revision, not what they're going for. In addition, the Ardling is very broad, the 1000 ways the lore allows you to flavor it makes it honestly hard to implement into a campaign setting. When a DM is thinking celestial, another is thinking mongoose man, and another player is thinking rainbow frog, the players won't be happy when they hear that the DM's setting version is much more celestial-like.
I can see that, but this should be something discussed in a session zero when explaining the setting. You have to do the same exact thing now when choosing a god for a cleric, you can't worship rainbow frog if there's no rainbow frog.
Well, what it's actually doing is drawing on the Archon celestials of older edition, many of which were animal headed beings of good alignment. Now, my knowledge of them is fuzzy at best, but my memory of them from 2e monster manuals seems to recall them as being a good-aligned counterpoint to the lawful evil devils. Kinda makes me wonder if the Archons are going to make a comeback?
This. I outlined it in my many-pointed wall of text a while back. You are correct. I think it would be nice to see an archon comeback, but I am- unsuprisingly- a huge fan of all things celestial.
To be fair I do come from an online DMing background and a ton of applicants for my campaigns tend to be obsessed with shoving their character into the campaign rather than making a character for the campaign. That's what I'm trying to say with the "rainbow frog" thing.
So I just queued up the YouTube interview with Crawford talking about the UA. He specifically says that ardlings are a distinct and new race, refers to their "aasimar cousins" and then focuses on how cool it is that they have animal features and can gain limited flight as a PHB race. He then doesn't mention the pre-existing aasimar again, never mind how the "new" limited flight feature is just a watered down version of what protector aasimar already have. So instead of just making aasimar a PHB race we get something that the lead designer specifically describes as being a lot like aasimar, but furry.
Seriously, the only thing substantively differentiating them from aasimar is that they have the heads (and if you want, literal fur/feathers/hide) of animals. Please tell me why we need those aside from appealing to furries.
Seriously, the only thing substantively differentiating them from aasimar is that they have the heads (and if you want, literal fur/feathers/hide) of animals. Please tell me why we need those aside from appealing to furries.
Well, maybe it appeals to grognards. Or people who like non-European mythologies. I mean, tell me why we need halflings AND gnomes? Kenku AND aarakocra? Tabaxi AND leonin? ...Orcs AND goblins?
Well, maybe it appeals to grognards. Or people who like non-European mythologies. I mean, tell me why we need halflings AND gnomes? Kenku AND aarakocra? Tabaxi AND leonin? ...Orcs AND goblins?
Seriously. Like, why do we even have humans in this game anymore? (joking!)
I don't think this is meant to appeal to us. At least not in a PHB context.
While we don't really mind either anthropomorphs as a concept, or outsider bloodlines - though not necessarily as an independent race(species) versus a subtype or template available to pre-existing races: I'm pretty confident in exclaiming that we'd be most comfortable if the PHB only had Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings with all other races in their own supplementary books. Similarly, we'd probably be happy enough with a PHB that only had Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Mage.
I know people like "lot's of choices" these days, but "Keep It Simple Stupid" is still best IMHO for a book designed to introduce newbies to the basic gaming experience before they expand their experience to include more layers of depth.
I don't think this meant to appeal to us. At least not in a PHB context.
While we don't really mind either anthropomorphs as a concept, or outsider bloodlines - though not necessarily as an independent race(species) versus a subtype or template available to pre-existing races: I'm pretty confident in exclaiming that we'd be most comfortable if the PHB only had Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings with all other races in their own supplementary books. Similarly, we'd probably be happy enough with a PHB that only had Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Mage.
I know people like "lot's of choices" these days, but "Keep It Simple Stupid" is still best IMHO for a book designed to introduce newbies to the basic gaming experience before they expand their experience to include more layers of depth.
That's exactly what the free Basic Rules were, at least initially, when 5e launched.
The Upper Planes being filled with furries is far from a new invention. Previously we had every guardinal, hound and another kind of archon who’s name I can’t remember, and probably a few kind of eladrin.
And it’s not just based on ancient Egyptian beliefs either, there are cave paintings of people with animal traits. Likewise, even in some Greek legends Hera is called “cow-eyed”.
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.
I would've totally been on board if they on boarded like centaurs or or satyrs or fairies to the PHB but this custom wacky asimar move no one asked for seems odd to me. I don't like it.
I think its important we get some sort of standardized "flying is ok and acceptable" in the base kit of a character
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.
And that is the great thing about D&D! We, as groups, can customize our games. It’s why I love it. Personally I love the Ardling concept, so it will be fine in my own worlds. But every world can be different!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
Weird animal head "not aasimar" wasn't on anybody I knows wish list. Aasimar were.
Maybe it has to do with copyrights and Aasimar not being their creations so they can't own it.
As for the Orcs I welcome that and thought they should have been added after Eberron made them PCs in 3rd ed.
Aasimar are in MMM. They're not going anywhere, but they're also not showing up in the new PHB. Just like duergar and eladrin, among others.
I'll be pretty shocked if ardlings make it to the new PHB. To me, they seem way more niche than most of the stuff that's already not part of the core books. But would I be upset? Nah. The game's already weird, and this is hardly an escalation when we've already got beholders and gelatinous cubes and stuff.
Weird animal head "not aasimar" wasn't on anybody I knows wish list. Aasimar were.
Maybe it has to do with copyrights and Aasimar not being their creations so they can't own it.
As for the Orcs I welcome that and thought they should have been added after Eberron made them PCs in 3rd ed.
Aasimar are in MMM. They're not going anywhere, but they're also not showing up in the new PHB. Just like duergar and eladrin, among others.
I'll be pretty shocked if ardlings make it to the new PHB. To me, they seem way more niche than most of the stuff that's already not part of the core books. But would I be upset? Nah. The game's already weird, and this is hardly an escalation when we've already got beholders and gelatinous cubes and stuff.
Orc is also in the MMM but making its way into the PHB so being in MMM already is not really a valid reason not to move Aasimar. I am not anti Aardling, but I would prefer they move an older race to the PHB and keep new races to source books.
Weird animal head "not aasimar" wasn't on anybody I knows wish list. Aasimar were.
Maybe it has to do with copyrights and Aasimar not being their creations so they can't own it.
As for the Orcs I welcome that and thought they should have been added after Eberron made them PCs in 3rd ed.
Aasimar are in MMM. They're not going anywhere, but they're also not showing up in the new PHB. Just like duergar and eladrin, among others.
I'll be pretty shocked if ardlings make it to the new PHB. To me, they seem way more niche than most of the stuff that's already not part of the core books. But would I be upset? Nah. The game's already weird, and this is hardly an escalation when we've already got beholders and gelatinous cubes and stuff.
Orc is also in the MMM but making its way into the PHB so being in MMM already is not really a valid reason not to move Aasimar.
Oh! I didn't know that. Guess I just overlooked it.
Well, it's not too late to add aasimar to the new PHB. I mean, this is literally the first playtest draft.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
yeah, if you watch the Origins video, Crawford specifically states that Aardlings are being ADDED, and not replacing Aasimar. So you celestial, fiendish, and now nature based quasi-divine races
See this is also a great thing then. Now you can play your stereotypical golden haired angel archetype, or something with of a different culture with the same feel. Goes a long way for inclusion.
My main issue with them is that what they are supposed to be thematically, a mystic, divine servant of an animal-like, semi divine, semi primal god when compared to what they are mechanically, a watered down Aasimar. If I were to just look at the Ardling's mechanics, I would think this is an attempt at an Aasimar revision, not what they're going for.
In addition, the Ardling is very broad, the 1000 ways the lore allows you to flavor it makes it honestly hard to implement into a campaign setting. When a DM is thinking celestial, another is thinking mongoose man, and another player is thinking rainbow frog, the players won't be happy when they hear that the DM's setting version is much more celestial-like.
I like them they're an interesting alternative to tieflings...aasimar are boring.
Also this means that all pets/animals go to heaven cannonically ;)
Well, what it's actually doing is drawing on the Archon celestials of older edition, many of which were animal headed beings of good alignment. Now, my knowledge of them is fuzzy at best, but my memory of them from 2e monster manuals seems to recall them as being a good-aligned counterpoint to the lawful evil devils. Kinda makes me wonder if the Archons are going to make a comeback?
I can see that, but this should be something discussed in a session zero when explaining the setting. You have to do the same exact thing now when choosing a god for a cleric, you can't worship rainbow frog if there's no rainbow frog.
This. I outlined it in my many-pointed wall of text a while back. You are correct. I think it would be nice to see an archon comeback, but I am- unsuprisingly- a huge fan of all things celestial.
To be fair I do come from an online DMing background and a ton of applicants for my campaigns tend to be obsessed with shoving their character into the campaign rather than making a character for the campaign. That's what I'm trying to say with the "rainbow frog" thing.
So I just queued up the YouTube interview with Crawford talking about the UA. He specifically says that ardlings are a distinct and new race, refers to their "aasimar cousins" and then focuses on how cool it is that they have animal features and can gain limited flight as a PHB race. He then doesn't mention the pre-existing aasimar again, never mind how the "new" limited flight feature is just a watered down version of what protector aasimar already have. So instead of just making aasimar a PHB race we get something that the lead designer specifically describes as being a lot like aasimar, but furry.
Seriously, the only thing substantively differentiating them from aasimar is that they have the heads (and if you want, literal fur/feathers/hide) of animals. Please tell me why we need those aside from appealing to furries.
Well, maybe it appeals to grognards. Or people who like non-European mythologies. I mean, tell me why we need halflings AND gnomes? Kenku AND aarakocra? Tabaxi AND leonin? ...Orcs AND goblins?
Seriously. Like, why do we even have humans in this game anymore? (joking!)
I don't think this is meant to appeal to us. At least not in a PHB context.
While we don't really mind either anthropomorphs as a concept, or outsider bloodlines - though not necessarily as an independent race(species) versus a subtype or template available to pre-existing races: I'm pretty confident in exclaiming that we'd be most comfortable if the PHB only had Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings with all other races in their own supplementary books. Similarly, we'd probably be happy enough with a PHB that only had Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Mage.
I know people like "lot's of choices" these days, but "Keep It Simple Stupid" is still best IMHO for a book designed to introduce newbies to the basic gaming experience before they expand their experience to include more layers of depth.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I'm also in the, "Why not Aasimar?" Camp.
Weird animal head "not aasimar" wasn't on anybody I knows wish list. Aasimar were.
Maybe it has to do with copyrights and Aasimar not being their creations so they can't own it.
As for the Orcs I welcome that and thought they should have been added after Eberron made them PCs in 3rd ed.
That's exactly what the free Basic Rules were, at least initially, when 5e launched.
Fair Winds and Following Seas
The Upper Planes being filled with furries is far from a new invention. Previously we had every guardinal, hound and another kind of archon who’s name I can’t remember, and probably a few kind of eladrin.
And it’s not just based on ancient Egyptian beliefs either, there are cave paintings of people with animal traits. Likewise, even in some Greek legends Hera is called “cow-eyed”.
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.
I would've totally been on board if they on boarded like centaurs or or satyrs or fairies to the PHB but this custom wacky asimar move no one asked for seems odd to me. I don't like it.
I think its important we get some sort of standardized "flying is ok and acceptable" in the base kit of a character
And that is the great thing about D&D! We, as groups, can customize our games. It’s why I love it. Personally I love the Ardling concept, so it will be fine in my own worlds. But every world can be different!
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
Aasimar are in MMM. They're not going anywhere, but they're also not showing up in the new PHB. Just like duergar and eladrin, among others.
I'll be pretty shocked if ardlings make it to the new PHB. To me, they seem way more niche than most of the stuff that's already not part of the core books. But would I be upset? Nah. The game's already weird, and this is hardly an escalation when we've already got beholders and gelatinous cubes and stuff.
Orc is also in the MMM but making its way into the PHB so being in MMM already is not really a valid reason not to move Aasimar. I am not anti Aardling, but I would prefer they move an older race to the PHB and keep new races to source books.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Oh! I didn't know that. Guess I just overlooked it.
Well, it's not too late to add aasimar to the new PHB. I mean, this is literally the first playtest draft.