HolyAvenger does make a good case, though there are a few issues.
Mainly, if we have aasimars as the celestial race... That's still just LG archons/angels. Tiefling cover infernal, cthonic(new yugoloths?) and abyssal. NG Guardinals and CG eladrin (heavenly Fae) still need to be represented too in the celestial race.
Also, "Primal" in defined as drawing power from the elemental planes, and the genasi (elemental) exist. They're the primal outsider touched peeps.
Personally, I would probably go with Aasimar as the race name, classical angel-people as LG, animal people as NG, and nymphs/dryads/neriads/etc as the CG. There's got to be spells and movement abilities we can use to represent all three
I can absolutely get behind ardlings as a primal rather than celestial race.
I suspect Jeremy Crawford might have misspoken when he said primal magics are derived from the Inner Planes. Primal magic, being nature themed, seems to draw its power from the Prime Material and the Feywild (and maybe the Shadowfell?) in addition to the elemental planes.
I suspect Jeremy Crawford might have misspoken when he said primal magics are derived from the Inner Planes. Primal magic, being nature themed, seems to draw its power from the Prime Material and the Feywild (and maybe the Shadowfell?) in addition to the elemental planes.
There are druids who worship gods and draw from the outer planes too. Clerics who worship the elder elementals or the Shadowfell's Ravenqueen. And that's before we get into the original Feywild being the CG outer plane.
So, yeah. The whole Divine/Primal/Arcane(/psionic?) thing is a gross oversimplification (or a deliberate change?), and they know it. They're bigger nerds than we here are.
So primal magic is just as outer plane centric as divine magic.
But that's not what the UA said, and it's not what HolyAvenger was suggesting. They were suggesting ardlings pull from a different plane set, but they're almost all taken.
Elemental planes are Genasi. Limbo/astral are the gith. Upper planes aasimar. Lower planes Tiefling. Feywild are the fey and elves (and beings Fey-touched traits with all involved).
That leaves the Material (no power source association), Mechanics (constructs) and Shadowfell (undead), and the Far Realm(abominations). None conductive to races of bipedal beastfolk.
Hard disagree. Elves and Dwarves are visually distinct and have their own unique culture, conflicts, and civilizations. 99% of the time Aasimar are just pretty humans with weird dreams. I wish they were more celestial-like in appearance in the same way that tiefling always look fiendish. Or that their connection to their celestial patron was more influential to them as a people, like the Quori are with the Kalashtar. Anything that fundamentally makes them different and interesting. They're just so watered-down.
Aasimar is my second favorite race, right after Tiefling, so as you see, opinions vary. While yes I do like Tiefling for their appearance, the primary draw is their infernal nature and how that impacts how they view the world. Aasimar have that exact same RP quality, but from the celestial end of the spectrum. They don't have horns and tails, but glowing halos, rainbows gleaming on their skin or metallic luminous eyes certainly make them look other worldly compared to the average human.
Pretty much every piece of artwork I've seen of them have had them as just pretty humans (not counting the art of them using their 1 minute a day finally looks kinda celestial ability). I've yet to see any Aasimar with a halo, or rainbow skin. I mean if they were all walking around with halos and rainbow skin that would a good step in the right direction, but so far all depictions/descriptions of them I've seen have been that they're just human, but pretty.
That is not the fault of the lore or race, but the players.
They resemble their parents, but they live for up to 160 years and often have features that hint at their celestial heritage. These often begin subtle and become more obvious when the aasimar gains the ability to reveal their full celestial nature. The Aasimar Celestial Features table has examples you can choose or use as inspiration to create your own.
Aasimar Celestial Features
d6
Celestial Feature
1
A dusting of metallic, white, or charcoal freckles
2
Metallic, luminous, or dark eyes
3
Starkly colored hair
4
An unusual hue tinting your shadow
5
A ghostly halo crowning your head
6
Rainbows gleaming on your skin
The bolded text grants you the ability to do what ever your heart desires, but even Volo's says "They are a people of otherworldly visages, with luminous features that reveal their celestial heritage." and "When traveling, aasimar prefer hoods, closed helms, and other gear that allows them to conceal their identities."
You can say that art is just of the transformation, an you would not be completely wrong, but you are making an assumption about what that character would look like otherwise as it isn't provided. I will admit that there are sure to be plenty of people that want to just play a "pretty human" but that is the choice they are making for themselves, that is not what I have seen in the games that I have been part of, nor is it how I make my characters. You are certainly allowed your opinion though, but I think you would be surprised at the number of players that really like to lean into the concept of "Otherworldly".
This is not at all what this thread is about, so I will bow out of the conversation here.
Hard disagree. Elves and Dwarves are visually distinct and have their own unique culture, conflicts, and civilizations. 99% of the time Aasimar are just pretty humans with weird dreams. I wish they were more celestial-like in appearance in the same way that tiefling always look fiendish. Or that their connection to their celestial patron was more influential to them as a people, like the Quori are with the Kalashtar. Anything that fundamentally makes them different and interesting. They're just so watered-down.
Aasimar is my second favorite race, right after Tiefling, so as you see, opinions vary. While yes I do like Tiefling for their appearance, the primary draw is their infernal nature and how that impacts how they view the world. Aasimar have that exact same RP quality, but from the celestial end of the spectrum. They don't have horns and tails, but glowing halos, rainbows gleaming on their skin or metallic luminous eyes certainly make them look other worldly compared to the average human.
Pretty much every piece of artwork I've seen of them have had them as just pretty humans (not counting the art of them using their 1 minute a day finally looks kinda celestial ability). I've yet to see any Aasimar with a halo, or rainbow skin. I mean if they were all walking around with halos and rainbow skin that would a good step in the right direction, but so far all depictions/descriptions of them I've seen have been that they're just human, but pretty.
That is not the fault of the lore or race, but the players.
They resemble their parents, but they live for up to 160 years and often have features that hint at their celestial heritage. These often begin subtle and become more obvious when the aasimar gains the ability to reveal their full celestial nature. The Aasimar Celestial Features table has examples you can choose or use as inspiration to create your own.
Aasimar Celestial Features
d6
Celestial Feature
1
A dusting of metallic, white, or charcoal freckles
2
Metallic, luminous, or dark eyes
3
Starkly colored hair
4
An unusual hue tinting your shadow
5
A ghostly halo crowning your head
6
Rainbows gleaming on your skin
The bolded text grants you the ability to do what ever your heart desires, but even Volo's says "They are a people of otherworldly visages, with luminous features that reveal their celestial heritage." and "When traveling, aasimar prefer hoods, closed helms, and other gear that allows them to conceal their identities."
You can say that art is just of the transformation, an you would not be completely wrong, but you are making an assumption about what that character would look like otherwise as it isn't provided. I will admit that there are sure to be plenty of people that want to just play a "pretty human" but that is the choice they are making for themselves, that is not what I have seen in the games that I have been part of, nor is it how I make my characters. You are certainly allowed your opinion though, but I think you would be surprised at the number of players that really like to lean into the concept of "Otherworldly".
This is not at all what this thread is about, so I will bow out of the conversation here.
What you've quoted is once again just a description of human, but pretty. And all of the official artwork pretty much coincides with that. And you're taking the reason they prefer to wear hoods and the like out of context. It isn't because of the way that most people would see them or treat them, it's to conceal their identities from the people that they are actively ******* with.
Players can make their characters look however they want. If they want to be halflings with hair that's more RGB than a gaming rig they're free to do so. But when all depictions of what a race looks like shows one thing and they go with something completely out there, that isn't really a property of the race so much as the character. And again, the latest changes (because they absolutely are changes) in how they look given in Mordenkainens is definitely a step in the right direction, we're yet to see if they're going to actually stick with the retcon or revert them to being how they've always been in the past, which is essentially human but pretty.
Beastfolk would defeat the purpose of what Ardings are. They're an opposite to the Thiefling.
By your own premise wouldn't Beastkin be too similar to Grung, Lizardfolk..... etc. That single race would overwrite a ton of races. That idea seems worse since it would take all these distinct creatures, traits, lore, etc. and remove it.
That being said, other than the animal look, they're a bit redundant to the Aasimar. I'd rather they just rework the Aasimar to include the Celestial Legacy trait. Honestly, just keep the Aasimar aethetic and carry over the aspects of the Ardling to them. The fluff for Aasimar are pretty weak as it stands. Suddenly manifesting is a bit bland, but I don't see how to have them manifest opposite Thieflings, since those are the result of an ancient sin. While the head of animals is interesting If I had to pick, keeping the looks of Aasimar or the new Ardling look, I'd go with the Aasimar. While WotC's reasoning for making them animals is based on religions they seem to neglect that the ones that look like animals are actually the minority. Most ancient gods were human looking. Even in Egypt, it was only a select few that had animals heads. While they can also use the excuse that gods in DnD aren't all human, then that would need to translate to their angelic monsters which are more judeochristain in their look.
BTW, the reason we have Tieflings and not Aasimars in this first UA for 1DnD is because they were going off the Players Handbook Races first. The Aasimar were not in the 5e Players Handbook.
It is important to remember that this is not a new edition like 5e was to 4e. Its an update / reword of existing materials. More similar to 3.5 over 3e. All existing material will translate over into 1DnD, until they add in updated rules for that material as time goes on.
If you follow the logic of the schools of magic, the Ardlings could have a primal heritage. Link it to the nature they embody. If you prefer the arcane, make them like draconic sorcerers where the animal traits expand as they progress. The Tiefling /Aasimar dichotomy is firmly established and making Ardlings celestials just muddy's things. Worst part of the UA so far.
Ardlings are Divine heritage, the feature is also called Celestial Legacy, so that'd infer Divine, not primal. However the reason I can say they are Divine is that of the spells we have in spell list (cantrips and 1st level), all 6 are found in the Divine list, only 3 of those 6 are found in the primal list, Guidence, Cure Wounds and Healing word are, Light, Thaumaturgy and Divine Favor aren't. The only bit that confuses it is Idyllic getting animal messenger that is likely primal only but the spell lists don't go to the 2nd level yet, Zone of truth is likely divine only and lesser restoration is likely both.
Additionally Ardlings are resistant to Radiant Damage, which feels like it's more down the Divine route.
I *think* I get where HolyAvenger14 was going here, though I might be off on my own tangent. Maybe rejiggering Ardlings to be more Primal and less Divine would reduce the apparent overlap they have with Aasimar.
Though to be honest, I'm still not quite convinced about the Primal vs Divine vs Arcane magic split myself. I'm still working out how that fits into the cannon of my homebrew campaign setting, as I've been running with a different 'third source of magical effects' for decades and Primal isn't fitting into that mould without extreme hammering.
In regards to the spell lists.
Those are groupings of magic. It is a bit annoying since its a 3rd grouping. i.e. we have classes, and schools, but this is more similar to 4e upon the idea of "source" I'm not certain on what you reference for "homebrewing" but if you're thinking of a homebrew class (or subclass) These schools are not limiting you at all. Even going forward classes WILL have a mix of these sources in their class spell lists. i.e. Artificer has spells like Cure Woulds has cleric spells. What it does is make it easier (on WotC) in making feats that give access to spell lists. (You'll notice that Eldritch Blast is suspiciously missing from any of the categories). This allows them to make a feat (Magic Initiate) that gives access to a list of spells that is more in line with a theme rather than a class. Although from a homebrew feat perspective, you could make up your own list of spells giving you control of what a player can take outside of a specific class. It would be cool if they added something like a Psionic and Eldritch school in the future.
That being said....eh, I don't see it as a huge necessity. It just seems redundant to schools of magic.
Beastfolk would defeat the purpose of what Ardings are. They're an opposite to the Tiefling.
By your own premise wouldn't Beastkin be too similar to Grung, Lizardfolk..... etc. That single race would overwrite a ton of races. That idea seems worse since it would take all these distinct creatures, traits, lore, etc. and remove it.
...
While WotC's reasoning for making them animals is based on religions they seem to neglect that the ones that look like animals are actually the minority.
A race can be more than one thing. They're both the opposite of Tiefling AND a beastfolk race.
Having one race fill in for various beastkin *in the PHB* is kinda the appeal for many. Over the course of 5e, we have about 10 anthropomorphic PC options, and probably a dozen NPC options, spread out over *years*. Which may or may not include what you're looking for. I know I like the option to play a fox or cat out of the gate.
And WotC's reasoning has everything to do with the fact that upper plane beings with animal bodies or features outnumber those without. 3 archons (hound, bear, owl), every last Guardinal is an animal by definition (7 by default), foo creatures, hollyphants, pegasi/unicorns/kirin, baku, moon dogs, couatl, lillend, and at least one celestial eladrin (I thought there was one with a satyr-like form as well the dolphin, but only can find the latter).
That's 3 angels, 7 eladrin and 7 archons without any animal features, and at least 20 with. The eladrin resemble elves or sprites/fairies/nixie's, and can shift into energy balls or environmental bodies (sandstorms, etc). Lanturn archons are balls of light.
That means that the current angel-like aasimar only reflect one quarter of actual celestial beings (9 of 37). All of which are purely Lawful Good beings. And ardlings over 50%, with elves taking a bit shy of the last quarter.
The primary mythology being drawn on here is D&D's own Great Wheel cosmology.
It is a bit annoying since its a 3rd grouping. i.e. we have classes, and schools, but this is more similar to 4e upon the idea of "source"I get the feeling they're testing out the removal of class spell lists.
I get the feeling they're dropping class spell lists, and moving things like Eldritch Blast to class features.
People complained a lot about how Warlock and Sorcerer lists are pale reflections of the Wizard's. And how all the caster classes without themed spell list subclasses feel the same regardless of subclass choice.
So, we get power source, and we get subclass lists. No class spell list.
Good way to avoid the apparent class bias with authors too.
It is a bit annoying since its a 3rd grouping. i.e. we have classes, and schools, but this is more similar to 4e upon the idea of "source"I get the feeling they're testing out the removal of class spell lists.
I get the feeling they're dropping class spell lists, and moving things like Eldritch Blast to class features.
People complained a lot about how Warlock and Sorcerer lists are pale reflections of the Wizard's. And how all the caster classes without themed spell list subclasses feel the same regardless of subclass choice.
So, we get power source, and we get subclass lists. No class spell list.
Good way to avoid the apparent class bias with authors too.
Didn't Paladin have more class specific spells than Sorcerer originally, when a half-caster had more unique spell list than a full caster.... anyways, they already confirmed there would still be class specific spells in an interview IIRC.
I don't think Eldritch Blast is moving to a class feature, I just think the three lists we have are for spells you can learn from classes and features that give access to them, I think Eldritch Blast will remain a spell/cantrip but you won't be able to pick it up from magic initiate anymore, which you could before. So class specific spells will end out appearing either in another list or no list at all, and we can see some overlap of some spells between the lists already, like healing word being both divine and primal.
Formerly class specific spells, such as Vicious Mockery, Searing Smite, Hex, Hellish Rebuke, Hunters Mark, Ensnaring Strike and many others, are all on these lists.
At this point, Eldritch Blast is the only notable exception. And there's a very good chance that one is going to change to avoid the multi class nonsense of 5e with it.
So, one has to wonder what would go into these class specific lists if practically everything class specific but EB is already there.
Couple that with the trends we are seeing from the direction post-Tasha has gone, and ...
As for the video, they basically said, "wait for future UA to see how classes use these lists, and how classes go beyond these lists." Which could mean anything; neither confirmation nor denial.
Though to be honest, I'm still not quite convinced about the Primal vs Divine vs Arcane magic split myself. I'm still working out how that fits into the cannon of my homebrew campaign setting, as I've been running with a different 'third source of magical effects' for decades and Primal isn't fitting into that mould without extreme hammering.
In regards to the spell lists.
Those are groupings of magic. It is a bit annoying since its a 3rd grouping. i.e. we have classes, and schools, but this is more similar to 4e upon the idea of "source" I'm not certain on what you reference for "homebrewing" but if you're thinking of a homebrew class (or subclass) These schools are not limiting you at all. Even going forward classes WILL have a mix of these sources in their class spell lists. i.e. Artificer has spells like Cure Woulds has cleric spells. What it does is make it easier (on WotC) in making feats that give access to spell lists. (You'll notice that Eldritch Blast is suspiciously missing from any of the categories). This allows them to make a feat (Magic Initiate) that gives access to a list of spells that is more in line with a theme rather than a class. Although from a homebrew feat perspective, you could make up your own list of spells giving you control of what a player can take outside of a specific class. It would be cool if they added something like a Psionic and Eldritch school in the future.
That being said....eh, I don't see it as a huge necessity. It just seems redundant to schools of magic.
My reference to 'homebrew' campaign setting is because I've been running RPG games in the same campaign world since 1976, with it gaining features, fluff, and weird bits and pieces from every ruleset/edition it's wandered through, D&D, GURPS, Paladium, and odd short-print-run systems that took my fancy. Whenever I move it to another ruleset, I try to work out how the accumulated lore meshes with/gains from the new mechanics so that my players don't get cognitive dissonance. :)
In this particular case, Detect Magic and it's equivalents has in my campaign world the extra feature of not just picking out the school of magic, but the *source* of magic. Be it flowing from some powerful distant entity through faith or pact (Divine), pulled from the surrounding mana field (Arcane), or drawn from an inner reserve (Psionic). This lore was added to the setting back in AD&D 1st edition and has had some.. odd effects on the game mechanics over the decades as new classes and features have been added/altered. For examples, Low and Dead magic zones have more impact on Arcane casters than Divine and Psionic (It still effects all three, just not equally), Warlocks ping as 'Divine' even though their spells are Arcane, etc.
I haven't worked out how, or if, Primal needs to be added to the 'source' lore mechanically in this setting. I'm leaning towards ignoring it, treating it like a organizational ruleset mechanic rather than having any external effect, but if it can be detected by the characters in someway in the new ruleset, I'll need to think about it some more. I'd rather *not* add a fourth powersource, as one the foundational principles to the campaign setting is that everything is based on prime numbers. If the characters/players think that some force in the world is binary (Good/Evil), or broken into four (Earth/Air/Fire/Water), it means they've misunderstanding something as all fundamental forces come in sets of 3, 5, 7, 11, etc.
A comparison of class spell lists from 2014 PHB to the UA Power Source spell lists.
PHB Bard cantrips - all in Arcane spell list. Including the class exclusive Vicious Mockery.
PHB Bard 1st- spread equally between Arcane, Divine, Primal. Fitting, I suppose, for a Jack. Includes class exclusive Dissonant Whispers in Arcane.
PHB Cleric cantrips - all in Divine except Mending of all things
PHB Cleric 1st - only missing Create Food and Water
PHB Druid cantrips - all in Primal list
PHB Druid 1st - all but Charm Person
PHB Paladin 1st - all on Divine list, including class exclusive Smite spells.
PHB Ranger 1st - All but Alarm in Primal list, including class exclusive Ensnaring Strike, Hunter's Mark and Hail of Thorns.
PHB Sorcerer cantrips - all in Arcane spell list.
PHB Sorcerer 1st - all in Arcane
PHB Warlock cantrips - missing the class exclusive Eldritch Blast. Otherwise, Arcane
PHB Warlock 1st - missing Unseen Servant, all the rest in Arcane, including class exclusive Hex, Hellish Rebuke, Armor of Agathys, Arms of Hadar
PHB Wizard cantrips - all in Arcane list
PHB Wizard 1st - missing Unseen Servant, all the rest in Arcane.
Tasha Artificer - of the 2014 PHB available spells, all available in the UA doc lists
TL;DR- Eldritch Blast and Unseen Servant are the only PHB spells missing from these three lists. Some spells got shuffled around, either as typos or just a change from 5e, but otherwise it's clear these lists cover practically everything the old class lists did as well, removing the need to have class lists.
TL;DR- Eldritch Blast and Unseen Servant are the only PHB spells missing from these three lists. Some spells got shuffled around, either as typos or just a change from 5e, but otherwise it's clear these lists cover practically everything the old class lists did as well, removing the need to have class lists.
I'm not sure what you mean "removing the need to have class lists" There is absolutely still a need to have them. In the Origins video they even stated that class lists are not impacted at all by this. A number of classes would lose spells if they limited them to these lists. Artificer is a prime example of this. Things also get more troublesome as you get to higher levels. If Sorcerers didn't have a class list separate from Wizards they could cast all the same, when right now they have a lot of differences from Wizard spell lists.
I feel like you really should look closer because classes would get access to a number of things that they don't currently have, i.e. Wizards and Sorcerers getting Hex. Sorcerers Warlocks getting Gift of Alacrity among so many others.
A number of classes would lose spells if they limited them to these lists.
No, no they wouldn't. That's the whole point I'm making. Some spells have been shuffled around, but overall, 8 class lists have been reduced to three with only two spells MIA.
There is literally nothing left to put into a separate class spell list.
Bard is the only really needs access to more than one to effectively stay the same, and as magical Jacks, they probably have access to all three somehow. Artificer spells are primarily Arcane and the very few that aren't can easily be poached by a subclass or class feature.
" In the Origins video they even stated that class lists are not impacted at all by this."
They did not say that. 46:30, roughly. They said classes could go beyond these lists, but refused to say how at this point in time. There's a very good chance they're referring to the themed subclass lists that mist classes get becoming universal. Not a redundant class list.
"I feel like you really should look closer because classes would get access to a number of things that they don't currently have"
YES! That's exactly the point! They are doing exactly that. No more class exclusive spells except Eldritch Blast. To quote the UA:
There are now three main Spell lists in the game: Arcane, Divine, and Primal. In future Unearthed Arcana articles, we’ll show how Classes use these lists and how a Class or Subclass might gain Spells from another list.
Three main spell lists. Classes use them. Classes and subclass might get individual spells from another list.
Seems like classes use these three instead of class lists to me.
A number of classes would lose spells if they limited them to these lists.
No, no they wouldn't. That's the whole point I'm making. Some spells have been shuffled around, but overall, 8 class lists have been reduced to three with only two spells MIA.
There is literally nothing left to put into a separate class spell list.
Bard is the only really needs access to more than one to effectively stay the same, and as magical Jacks, they probably have access to all three somehow. Artificer spells are primarily Arcane and the very few that aren't can easily be poached by a subclass or class feature.
" In the Origins video they even stated that class lists are not impacted at all by this."
They did not say that. 46:30, roughly. They said classes could go beyond these lists, but refused to say how at this point in time. There's a very good chance they're referring to the themed subclass lists that mist classes get becoming universal. Not a redundant class list.
"I feel like you really should look closer because classes would get access to a number of things that they don't currently have"
YES! That's exactly the point! They are doing exactly that. No more class exclusive spells except Eldritch Blast. To quote the UA:
There are now three main Spell lists in the game: Arcane, Divine, and Primal. In future Unearthed Arcana articles, we’ll show how Classes use these lists and how a Class or Subclass might gain Spells from another list.
Three main spell lists. Classes use them. Classes and subclass might get individual spells from another list.
Seems like classes use these three instead of class lists to me.
"Classes go beyond these spell lists" YEAH, exactly, as in, they have larger lists. You're in denial if you think that isn't the case. If classes get individual spells from another list that class has....its own spell list. How are you missing the obvious point when you're literally saying it. All they were saying is these lists include spells that are in class lists, i.e. not exclusive to these lists.
The whole purpose of these was to resolve Magic Initiate picking up an entire spell list, when they feel this makes more sense.
What you're suggesting is that a sorcerer would have Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion or Mordenkainen's Sword. That doesn't make sense sorcerers use raw natural power where wizards tend towards literary and knowledge thus spells would have been written by someone, crafted in a logical fashion. Its stupid to have them have basically the same list.
If you look at the Wizard's spell list and say "Yeah, Sorcerer should have all that" you're deluded. Or say, "Artificer should have access to all the spells a Warlock has" give me a break.
Again, if you're claiming "classes will use these lists now but have some spells unique to them" that's literally what we currently have. Classes have overlap. That's always been the case, especially in the cantrips.
I feel like the way you're talking about this is that going forward classes will only have this list then have a small amount of spells, like some cleric subclasses have bonus spells. That isn't how this is dude.
This isn't a new addition, you're talking like there will be a radical change. There won't be.
Insults are truly the last resort of a crumbling position.
There's only so many ways I can repeat that the UA is saying that the Arcane classes use the Arcane list, the divine classes use the Divine list, the primal classes the Primal list. Not just the feat. Classes. Use. The. UA Spell. Lists.
There are zero reference to class-based spell lists, not in the UA, not in the video. It's easy to assume they still exist, because they always have. However, All arguments to the effect they must exist are nothing more than circular reasoning based on that assumption.
I said there are no more class exclusive spells (except Eld.Blast, which I assume turns into a feature). I'm really at a loss how someone can twist "No more class exclusive spells" to mean "yes exclusive spells."
Sorcerers should be Wizards equal in spell craft. None of this class bias.
As someone who loves to play Beastfolk I strongly disagree with the idea of rolling them all up into a single catch-all race and calling it a day. Lineages don't seem nearly robust enough to account for unique mechanics for all the main groupings of animal (mammal, reptile, avian, amphibian, insect, fish, etc.). Not to mention that you'd almost certainly need sub-lineages on top of that (try to make a single racial profile that accounts for cat people, horse people, hippo people, and elephant people. I'll wait.)
Rolling them all into a single "race" would necessitate watering down the specific animal flavors that make Tabaxi, Lizardfolk, kenku, tortle, etc. so fun and unique to play.
Besides, a lot of these beastfolk races have been around for so long that they have more than enough background lore to be a playable race on their own. It'd seem incredibly dismissive to roll Tabaxi and Lizardfolk into the same race. Especially when there's like a dozen verities of elves running around.
In older editions there where 4 main groups of celestials Angels (can be a servant of any good god), Archons (lawful good), Guardinals (nutral good)and Eladrin (chaotic good). They might want to move away from the term Angel as it might brush some peoples religious sensitivities the wrong way. And in 5e they moved Eladrin so they are now fey instead of celestials.
Leaving Archons and Guardinals 2 of the 9 Archon types are animal based hound archon (dog) and warden archon (bear) and all of the Guardinals are animal based So a half celestials having animal features would not be strange.
Though personally I might prefer if they brought the Eladrin back to being celestials. so you could have one half celestial race with 3 Legacies like the Tiefling in the playtest. Where the nutral good Legacy would be based on the Guardinal and be animal based.
My issue isn't really with having aasimar or not. It's why not just have a beastfolk race?
WIth the current idea for playing someone of mixed ancestry, a player could combine beastfolk with aasimar (or whatever) and have what WoTC produced.
But a distinct BEASTFOLK type race would mean a player could pick an animal and not have to be tied to an angelic heritage. They could just play a squirrelfolk or a birdfolk or whatever. It would allow a lot of flexibility, without needing to introduce later animal-specific races (owlin, grung, harengon, etc). WoTC could easily then give some generic feats for mammal, bird (fly speed), aquatic (swim speed, can breathe water), etc. Players could then flavor their character in different ways. WoTC could even say "adopt a trait from the animal as found in the MM or consulting with your DM."
Players can already choose size (so they can be a Small squirrelfolk or a Medium badgerfolk). This seems like a no-brainer.
FYI: I say this as someone who regulary DMs tables with kids 8-12, and invariably I've had to create rabbitfolk (before harengon was a thing), badgerfolk, a playable unicorn necromancer, a frogfolk (we reskinned grung), an axolotl, and various other beastfolk characters. Kids (and adults) love playing animalfolk. Just make a generic but flexible race and let people do it.
My issue isn't really with having aasimar or not. It's why not just have a beastfolk race?
But a distinct BEASTFOLK type race would mean a player could pick an animal and not have to be tied to an angelic heritage. They could just play a squirrelfolk or a birdfolk or whatever. It would allow a lot of flexibility, without needing to introduce later animal-specific races (owlin, grung, harengon, etc).
Doing this would rob the existing playable animal races of a lot of their charm and personality. The difference between an Aarakocra and a Lizardfolk is massive compared to the difference between a high elf and a wood elf so just being different lineages won't cut it. The only similarity they have is a natural weapon. Every other feature is wildly different.
There's no way to make a generic catch-all Beastfolk race without losing the individual animal flavors. They'd need to make an actual "build your own race" system wholesale. Which I am not necessarily opposed to, but if it means we never see a unique Lizardfolk or Tabaxi racial profile again I'll take a hard pass on it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I can absolutely get behind ardlings as a primal rather than celestial race.
I suspect Jeremy Crawford might have misspoken when he said primal magics are derived from the Inner Planes. Primal magic, being nature themed, seems to draw its power from the Prime Material and the Feywild (and maybe the Shadowfell?) in addition to the elemental planes.
There are druids who worship gods and draw from the outer planes too. Clerics who worship the elder elementals or the Shadowfell's Ravenqueen. And that's before we get into the original Feywild being the CG outer plane.
So, yeah. The whole Divine/Primal/Arcane(/psionic?) thing is a gross oversimplification (or a deliberate change?), and they know it. They're bigger nerds than we here are.
So primal magic is just as outer plane centric as divine magic.
But that's not what the UA said, and it's not what HolyAvenger was suggesting. They were suggesting ardlings pull from a different plane set, but they're almost all taken.
Elemental planes are Genasi. Limbo/astral are the gith. Upper planes aasimar. Lower planes Tiefling. Feywild are the fey and elves (and beings Fey-touched traits with all involved).
That leaves the Material (no power source association), Mechanics (constructs) and Shadowfell (undead), and the Far Realm(abominations). None conductive to races of bipedal beastfolk.
The bolded text grants you the ability to do what ever your heart desires, but even Volo's says "They are a people of otherworldly visages, with luminous features that reveal their celestial heritage." and "When traveling, aasimar prefer hoods, closed helms, and other gear that allows them to conceal their identities."
You can say that art is just of the transformation, an you would not be completely wrong, but you are making an assumption about what that character would look like otherwise as it isn't provided. I will admit that there are sure to be plenty of people that want to just play a "pretty human" but that is the choice they are making for themselves, that is not what I have seen in the games that I have been part of, nor is it how I make my characters. You are certainly allowed your opinion though, but I think you would be surprised at the number of players that really like to lean into the concept of "Otherworldly".
This is not at all what this thread is about, so I will bow out of the conversation here.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
What you've quoted is once again just a description of human, but pretty. And all of the official artwork pretty much coincides with that. And you're taking the reason they prefer to wear hoods and the like out of context. It isn't because of the way that most people would see them or treat them, it's to conceal their identities from the people that they are actively ******* with.
Players can make their characters look however they want. If they want to be halflings with hair that's more RGB than a gaming rig they're free to do so. But when all depictions of what a race looks like shows one thing and they go with something completely out there, that isn't really a property of the race so much as the character. And again, the latest changes (because they absolutely are changes) in how they look given in Mordenkainens is definitely a step in the right direction, we're yet to see if they're going to actually stick with the retcon or revert them to being how they've always been in the past, which is essentially human but pretty.
Beastfolk would defeat the purpose of what Ardings are. They're an opposite to the Thiefling.
By your own premise wouldn't Beastkin be too similar to Grung, Lizardfolk..... etc. That single race would overwrite a ton of races. That idea seems worse since it would take all these distinct creatures, traits, lore, etc. and remove it.
That being said, other than the animal look, they're a bit redundant to the Aasimar. I'd rather they just rework the Aasimar to include the Celestial Legacy trait. Honestly, just keep the Aasimar aethetic and carry over the aspects of the Ardling to them. The fluff for Aasimar are pretty weak as it stands. Suddenly manifesting is a bit bland, but I don't see how to have them manifest opposite Thieflings, since those are the result of an ancient sin. While the head of animals is interesting If I had to pick, keeping the looks of Aasimar or the new Ardling look, I'd go with the Aasimar. While WotC's reasoning for making them animals is based on religions they seem to neglect that the ones that look like animals are actually the minority. Most ancient gods were human looking. Even in Egypt, it was only a select few that had animals heads. While they can also use the excuse that gods in DnD aren't all human, then that would need to translate to their angelic monsters which are more judeochristain in their look.
BTW, the reason we have Tieflings and not Aasimars in this first UA for 1DnD is because they were going off the Players Handbook Races first. The Aasimar were not in the 5e Players Handbook.
It is important to remember that this is not a new edition like 5e was to 4e. Its an update / reword of existing materials. More similar to 3.5 over 3e. All existing material will translate over into 1DnD, until they add in updated rules for that material as time goes on.
In regards to the spell lists.
Those are groupings of magic. It is a bit annoying since its a 3rd grouping. i.e. we have classes, and schools, but this is more similar to 4e upon the idea of "source"
I'm not certain on what you reference for "homebrewing" but if you're thinking of a homebrew class (or subclass) These schools are not limiting you at all. Even going forward classes WILL have a mix of these sources in their class spell lists. i.e. Artificer has spells like Cure Woulds has cleric spells. What it does is make it easier (on WotC) in making feats that give access to spell lists. (You'll notice that Eldritch Blast is suspiciously missing from any of the categories). This allows them to make a feat (Magic Initiate) that gives access to a list of spells that is more in line with a theme rather than a class. Although from a homebrew feat perspective, you could make up your own list of spells giving you control of what a player can take outside of a specific class. It would be cool if they added something like a Psionic and Eldritch school in the future.
That being said....eh, I don't see it as a huge necessity. It just seems redundant to schools of magic.
A race can be more than one thing. They're both the opposite of Tiefling AND a beastfolk race.
Having one race fill in for various beastkin *in the PHB* is kinda the appeal for many. Over the course of 5e, we have about 10 anthropomorphic PC options, and probably a dozen NPC options, spread out over *years*. Which may or may not include what you're looking for. I know I like the option to play a fox or cat out of the gate.
And WotC's reasoning has everything to do with the fact that upper plane beings with animal bodies or features outnumber those without. 3 archons (hound, bear, owl), every last Guardinal is an animal by definition (7 by default), foo creatures, hollyphants, pegasi/unicorns/kirin, baku, moon dogs, couatl, lillend, and at least one celestial eladrin (I thought there was one with a satyr-like form as well the dolphin, but only can find the latter).
That's 3 angels, 7 eladrin and 7 archons without any animal features, and at least 20 with. The eladrin resemble elves or sprites/fairies/nixie's, and can shift into energy balls or environmental bodies (sandstorms, etc). Lanturn archons are balls of light.
That means that the current angel-like aasimar only reflect one quarter of actual celestial beings (9 of 37). All of which are purely Lawful Good beings. And ardlings over 50%, with elves taking a bit shy of the last quarter.
The primary mythology being drawn on here is D&D's own Great Wheel cosmology.
Didn't Paladin have more class specific spells than Sorcerer originally, when a half-caster had more unique spell list than a full caster.... anyways, they already confirmed there would still be class specific spells in an interview IIRC.
I don't think Eldritch Blast is moving to a class feature, I just think the three lists we have are for spells you can learn from classes and features that give access to them, I think Eldritch Blast will remain a spell/cantrip but you won't be able to pick it up from magic initiate anymore, which you could before. So class specific spells will end out appearing either in another list or no list at all, and we can see some overlap of some spells between the lists already, like healing word being both divine and primal.
Formerly class specific spells, such as Vicious Mockery, Searing Smite, Hex, Hellish Rebuke, Hunters Mark, Ensnaring Strike and many others, are all on these lists.
At this point, Eldritch Blast is the only notable exception. And there's a very good chance that one is going to change to avoid the multi class nonsense of 5e with it.
So, one has to wonder what would go into these class specific lists if practically everything class specific but EB is already there.
Couple that with the trends we are seeing from the direction post-Tasha has gone, and ...
As for the video, they basically said, "wait for future UA to see how classes use these lists, and how classes go beyond these lists." Which could mean anything; neither confirmation nor denial.
My reference to 'homebrew' campaign setting is because I've been running RPG games in the same campaign world since 1976, with it gaining features, fluff, and weird bits and pieces from every ruleset/edition it's wandered through, D&D, GURPS, Paladium, and odd short-print-run systems that took my fancy. Whenever I move it to another ruleset, I try to work out how the accumulated lore meshes with/gains from the new mechanics so that my players don't get cognitive dissonance. :)
In this particular case, Detect Magic and it's equivalents has in my campaign world the extra feature of not just picking out the school of magic, but the *source* of magic. Be it flowing from some powerful distant entity through faith or pact (Divine), pulled from the surrounding mana field (Arcane), or drawn from an inner reserve (Psionic). This lore was added to the setting back in AD&D 1st edition and has had some.. odd effects on the game mechanics over the decades as new classes and features have been added/altered. For examples, Low and Dead magic zones have more impact on Arcane casters than Divine and Psionic (It still effects all three, just not equally), Warlocks ping as 'Divine' even though their spells are Arcane, etc.
I haven't worked out how, or if, Primal needs to be added to the 'source' lore mechanically in this setting. I'm leaning towards ignoring it, treating it like a organizational ruleset mechanic rather than having any external effect, but if it can be detected by the characters in someway in the new ruleset, I'll need to think about it some more. I'd rather *not* add a fourth powersource, as one the foundational principles to the campaign setting is that everything is based on prime numbers. If the characters/players think that some force in the world is binary (Good/Evil), or broken into four (Earth/Air/Fire/Water), it means they've misunderstanding something as all fundamental forces come in sets of 3, 5, 7, 11, etc.
A comparison of class spell lists from 2014 PHB to the UA Power Source spell lists.
PHB Bard cantrips - all in Arcane spell list. Including the class exclusive Vicious Mockery.
PHB Bard 1st- spread equally between Arcane, Divine, Primal. Fitting, I suppose, for a Jack. Includes class exclusive Dissonant Whispers in Arcane.
PHB Cleric cantrips - all in Divine except Mending of all things
PHB Cleric 1st - only missing Create Food and Water
PHB Druid cantrips - all in Primal list
PHB Druid 1st - all but Charm Person
PHB Paladin 1st - all on Divine list, including class exclusive Smite spells.
PHB Ranger 1st - All but Alarm in Primal list, including class exclusive Ensnaring Strike, Hunter's Mark and Hail of Thorns.
PHB Sorcerer cantrips - all in Arcane spell list.
PHB Sorcerer 1st - all in Arcane
PHB Warlock cantrips - missing the class exclusive Eldritch Blast. Otherwise, Arcane
PHB Warlock 1st - missing Unseen Servant, all the rest in Arcane, including class exclusive Hex, Hellish Rebuke, Armor of Agathys, Arms of Hadar
PHB Wizard cantrips - all in Arcane list
PHB Wizard 1st - missing Unseen Servant, all the rest in Arcane.
Tasha Artificer - of the 2014 PHB available spells, all available in the UA doc lists
TL;DR- Eldritch Blast and Unseen Servant are the only PHB spells missing from these three lists. Some spells got shuffled around, either as typos or just a change from 5e, but otherwise it's clear these lists cover practically everything the old class lists did as well, removing the need to have class lists.
I'm not sure what you mean "removing the need to have class lists"
There is absolutely still a need to have them. In the Origins video they even stated that class lists are not impacted at all by this. A number of classes would lose spells if they limited them to these lists. Artificer is a prime example of this. Things also get more troublesome as you get to higher levels. If Sorcerers didn't have a class list separate from Wizards they could cast all the same, when right now they have a lot of differences from Wizard spell lists.
I feel like you really should look closer because classes would get access to a number of things that they don't currently have, i.e. Wizards and Sorcerers getting Hex. Sorcerers Warlocks getting Gift of Alacrity among so many others.
No, no they wouldn't. That's the whole point I'm making. Some spells have been shuffled around, but overall, 8 class lists have been reduced to three with only two spells MIA.
There is literally nothing left to put into a separate class spell list.
Bard is the only really needs access to more than one to effectively stay the same, and as magical Jacks, they probably have access to all three somehow. Artificer spells are primarily Arcane and the very few that aren't can easily be poached by a subclass or class feature.
" In the Origins video they even stated that class lists are not impacted at all by this."
They did not say that. 46:30, roughly. They said classes could go beyond these lists, but refused to say how at this point in time. There's a very good chance they're referring to the themed subclass lists that mist classes get becoming universal. Not a redundant class list.
"I feel like you really should look closer because classes would get access to a number of things that they don't currently have"
YES! That's exactly the point! They are doing exactly that. No more class exclusive spells except Eldritch Blast. To quote the UA:
There are now three main Spell lists in the game: Arcane, Divine, and Primal. In future Unearthed Arcana articles, we’ll show how Classes use these lists and how a Class or Subclass might gain Spells from another list.
Three main spell lists. Classes use them. Classes and subclass might get individual spells from another list.
Seems like classes use these three instead of class lists to me.
"Classes go beyond these spell lists" YEAH, exactly, as in, they have larger lists. You're in denial if you think that isn't the case.
If classes get individual spells from another list that class has....its own spell list. How are you missing the obvious point when you're literally saying it.
All they were saying is these lists include spells that are in class lists, i.e. not exclusive to these lists.
The whole purpose of these was to resolve Magic Initiate picking up an entire spell list, when they feel this makes more sense.
What you're suggesting is that a sorcerer would have Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion or Mordenkainen's Sword. That doesn't make sense sorcerers use raw natural power where wizards tend towards literary and knowledge thus spells would have been written by someone, crafted in a logical fashion. Its stupid to have them have basically the same list.
If you look at the Wizard's spell list and say "Yeah, Sorcerer should have all that" you're deluded. Or say, "Artificer should have access to all the spells a Warlock has" give me a break.
Again, if you're claiming "classes will use these lists now but have some spells unique to them" that's literally what we currently have. Classes have overlap. That's always been the case, especially in the cantrips.
I feel like the way you're talking about this is that going forward classes will only have this list then have a small amount of spells, like some cleric subclasses have bonus spells. That isn't how this is dude.
This isn't a new addition, you're talking like there will be a radical change. There won't be.
Insults are truly the last resort of a crumbling position.
There's only so many ways I can repeat that the UA is saying that the Arcane classes use the Arcane list, the divine classes use the Divine list, the primal classes the Primal list. Not just the feat. Classes. Use. The. UA Spell. Lists.
There are zero reference to class-based spell lists, not in the UA, not in the video. It's easy to assume they still exist, because they always have. However, All arguments to the effect they must exist are nothing more than circular reasoning based on that assumption.
I said there are no more class exclusive spells (except Eld.Blast, which I assume turns into a feature). I'm really at a loss how someone can twist "No more class exclusive spells" to mean "yes exclusive spells."
Sorcerers should be Wizards equal in spell craft. None of this class bias.
As someone who loves to play Beastfolk I strongly disagree with the idea of rolling them all up into a single catch-all race and calling it a day. Lineages don't seem nearly robust enough to account for unique mechanics for all the main groupings of animal (mammal, reptile, avian, amphibian, insect, fish, etc.). Not to mention that you'd almost certainly need sub-lineages on top of that (try to make a single racial profile that accounts for cat people, horse people, hippo people, and elephant people. I'll wait.)
Rolling them all into a single "race" would necessitate watering down the specific animal flavors that make Tabaxi, Lizardfolk, kenku, tortle, etc. so fun and unique to play.
Besides, a lot of these beastfolk races have been around for so long that they have more than enough background lore to be a playable race on their own. It'd seem incredibly dismissive to roll Tabaxi and Lizardfolk into the same race. Especially when there's like a dozen verities of elves running around.
My issue isn't really with having aasimar or not. It's why not just have a beastfolk race?
WIth the current idea for playing someone of mixed ancestry, a player could combine beastfolk with aasimar (or whatever) and have what WoTC produced.
But a distinct BEASTFOLK type race would mean a player could pick an animal and not have to be tied to an angelic heritage. They could just play a squirrelfolk or a birdfolk or whatever. It would allow a lot of flexibility, without needing to introduce later animal-specific races (owlin, grung, harengon, etc). WoTC could easily then give some generic feats for mammal, bird (fly speed), aquatic (swim speed, can breathe water), etc. Players could then flavor their character in different ways. WoTC could even say "adopt a trait from the animal as found in the MM or consulting with your DM."
Players can already choose size (so they can be a Small squirrelfolk or a Medium badgerfolk). This seems like a no-brainer.
FYI: I say this as someone who regulary DMs tables with kids 8-12, and invariably I've had to create rabbitfolk (before harengon was a thing), badgerfolk, a playable unicorn necromancer, a frogfolk (we reskinned grung), an axolotl, and various other beastfolk characters. Kids (and adults) love playing animalfolk. Just make a generic but flexible race and let people do it.
Doing this would rob the existing playable animal races of a lot of their charm and personality. The difference between an Aarakocra and a Lizardfolk is massive compared to the difference between a high elf and a wood elf so just being different lineages won't cut it. The only similarity they have is a natural weapon. Every other feature is wildly different.
There's no way to make a generic catch-all Beastfolk race without losing the individual animal flavors. They'd need to make an actual "build your own race" system wholesale. Which I am not necessarily opposed to, but if it means we never see a unique Lizardfolk or Tabaxi racial profile again I'll take a hard pass on it.