I doubt the Goliaths are gonna make it into the PHB (unless I’ve missed something), they’re probably testing it for the Giants book they’ve already announced.
They specifically said the Goliath is for the PHB as counter part to Orc in one of the videos.
The problem with Ardlings is that they are trying to make a catch-all beast people race and D&D doesn’t need one on account of all of the various beast people races.
I actually see it the other way round. There's like over9000 beast races, none of which are in the PHB, and there's still people asking for more: fox people, dragonfly people, dog people, whatever, and it will not stop until there's a species for every single animal on Earth. A catch-all player species for PHB is an elegant solution, just like three tiefling lineages instead of a multitude of subraces and variants we had.
While I get the point, the idea that people will stop asking for their favorite beast person is kind of silly. Not trying to be or rude, just people are never satisfied with what they have and people that like Lizardfolk, Tabaxi and Thri-kreen would never be happy with generic beast person builds 1, 2 or 3.
The problem with Ardlings is that they are trying to make a catch-all beast people race and D&D doesn’t need one on account of all of the various beast people races.
Maybe they should make Ardling the default animal race where you can choose your form with the climber etc options and make them Fey. Put Asimar in the PHB as the celestial option and Aaracocra, owlin, Leonin, tabaxi, etc can just be removed from the game.
Edit: if you want a flying race (if the DM allows them) maybe that is one of the options when you choose, but if you do you don’t get other species traits like darkvision, spells, etc.
That wouldn’t work, people hate it when options they already have are taken away from them. Let Ardlings be celestial, but make them celestial instead of a catch-all beast race. They can even still have bestial aspects, but give them an identity instead of making them so ambiguous that they can have almost any identity. It’s the whole “generic beast people” mentality bing that’s making them feel so… blah.
My biggest gripe with the original Ardling is that WotC pretty much just did a cut and paste of the Aasimar traits, my issue had nothing to do with the lore or appearance. I am not likely to win any arguments, but that is how felt about that version
My biggest gripe with the new version is Generic Beast People are generic. As I said in a post above, it won't really satisfy those that want a Doge person or Birb person or a Foxy person in the long run. All the Beast Species in the MpMotM are really fully compatible with OneDnD (Unlike pretty much all subclasses now).
I still believe that Ardling should just be cosmetically beast with spell like abilities but with a Primal focus. Again, I know that I won't win that argument, but that is how I feel about and how I will likely respond to the Survey at the end of the month.
The problem with Ardlings is that they are trying to make a catch-all beast people race and D&D doesn’t need one on account of all of the various beast people races.
I actually see it the other way round. There's like over9000 beast races, none of which are in the PHB, and there's still people asking for more: fox people, dragonfly people, dog people, whatever, and it will not stop until there's a species for every single animal on Earth. A catch-all player species for PHB is an elegant solution, just like three tiefling lineages instead of a multitude of subraces and variants we had.
This is what I was thinking as well. I once heard when Stan Lee invented the X-men, it was because he was tired of thinking up origin stories for his new heroes. Like, how many accidents and experiments gone wrong can you really have? So there was just a genetic mutation that could show up in any number of ways. This would be D&D’s version. Just plop whatever animal head you like on a body and there you go. And now the designers don’t have to come up with some clever name and package of mechanical abilities for every animal. They still could if they want something special, but this could fit the bill for most of the people most of the time.
The problem with Ardlings is that they are trying to make a catch-all beast people race and D&D doesn’t need one on account of all of the various beast people races.
I actually see it the other way round. There's like over9000 beast races, none of which are in the PHB, and there's still people asking for more: fox people, dragonfly people, dog people, whatever, and it will not stop until there's a species for every single animal on Earth. A catch-all player species for PHB is an elegant solution, just like three tiefling lineages instead of a multitude of subraces and variants we had.
This is what I was thinking as well. I once heard when Stan Lee invented the X-men, it was because he was tired of thinking up origin stories for his new heroes. Like, how many accidents and experiments gone wrong can you really have? So there was just a genetic mutation that could show up in any number of ways. This would be D&D’s version. Just plop whatever animal head you like on a body and there you go. And now the designers don’t have to come up with some clever name and package of mechanical abilities for every animal. They still could if they want something special, but this could fit the bill for most of the people most of the time.
I really do not want Ardling to become ANOTHER Fey race or ANOTHER generic beast race. Why is everyone ok with Fey race number 15, or Beast race number 12, but scoff at the idea of Celestial race number 2? Or more specifically THE ONE AND ONLY EXPLICITLY non-Judeo-Christian celestial race. JC said they were trying to do too much with the Ardling, I disagree. I believe the problem was the flavor appearance said one thing to some people and the flavor mechanics said another to those people and those people were not ready for the idea that a celestial player could be something that explicitly could not be similar to the Judeo-Christian concept of divinity in appearance.
If you lose the celestial part, it isn't the Ardling anymore. I would rather it get scrapped entirely than see it become yet another generic beast or fey creature. Having animal qualities WITH more divinity than a single cantrip is 100% the way I feel it needs to go. NOT primal, we have fey and elves for that.
If you have a problem with the amount of half animal races (which is completely valid), then a more beast-focused Ardling should be a good thing. After all, it could effectively replace a large number of beast races that are already in the game and prevent people from demanding new ones for every species on the planet. I also don't see why fey races are so bad; it's a realm of life and beauty with a lot of interesting lore, there's a lot of cool things that can come of it. I argue that not a single fey race is "generic."
A new celestial would be interesting, but I think races in the PHB should be more, well, basic. I like the idea of a more exotic celestial in later sourcebooks, but I prefer the idea of a more basic celestial in the PHB.
I actually don't have a problem with half-animal races. I have a problem with a race that is trying to be all encompassing for a dozen races we already have rather than being its own thing. In this case a celestial/beast. The Ardling was never originally a catch all beast race like some people believe, it was specifically a celestial race that had a new unique physical appearance to evoke feelings of egyption, hindu, North American and other pagan religions which are all over the world of DnD. Its abilities in the first UA were very generic celestial, its appearance wasn't what the modern day Judeo-Christian people think of. It was only after people got up in arms about wanting it to have more bestial stuff did it become what it is now. People want beasts, fine, but I don't want to lose the unique celestial, the old meme "why not both" is just ringing through my ears at this point. In short, it was basic, and then they had to go and make it complicated because people can't accept the explicitly non-Judeo-Christian representation of the Divine. There are probably more religions, especially polytheistic religions, with part animal gods than there are ones with human gods. Worshiping a part animal god dates all the way back to the dawn of civilization in the Mesopotamian years. And even in the America's with gods like Quetzalcoatl and their jaguar god.
Yes, D&D is for everyone. One D&D is very cognizant of inclusivity. While there is room for much customization in future releases, which group do you think they are trying to include in the PHB? They want to appeal to the largest fanbase and I would think that those who want to play animals is far greater than those who want to take the form of obscure foreign gods. Sure Horus and Anubis are depicted with animal heads, but countless others aren't. Should Ardlings have 4 arms each as well like Brahma and Vishnu? A tail instead of legs like Dagon? You can't just say Ardlings are celestials that represent the other categories of non-western gods.
While you argue against a generic class, I think WotC has made great strides in character customization for the cosmetic aspects and even has accommodated size in some races. The representations of deities are more expansive and varied than the beastial varieties - at least beasts can be categorized. By leaning into the primal side it allows the mechanics to be categorized more easily and makes Ardlings playable in all settings. To ensure future compatibility it is important to standardize the mechanics of the class and allow the flavor to meet the players desires.
Leave Ardlings solely in the primal realm, lean more heavily into the animal capabilities, perhaps giving them another manifestation at level 5 like the dragonborn. Right now they are underpowered. There have been suggestions in earlier threads - fighting styles, spells from other lists...
Put Aasimar into the PHB opposite tieflings. Replace Scourge Aasimar with another Primal subclass that has "manifest deity" rather than flight or necrotic shroud - where it takes the form of one of a deity (Vishnu's multiple arms, elephant/bird/falcon head - left to DM discretion). Extend the duration and maintain a limited, directed radiant consumption of sorts. That has more role playing implications that would benefit non-martial classes. Manifesting once / long rest doesn't make it OP.
This satisfies the those wanting to play beast folk and those who want a celestial that represents their deity.
Ive seen others suggest that the 9th level feature should be an upgrade to your holy order rather than an additional order. Some ideas along these lines would be
Protector - Extra Attack feature / maybe the choice of one of the Fighting Style feats
Scholar - more skill proficiencies or languages / ability to ritual cast Divine spells without preparing them
Thaumaturge - more cantrips 0-level spells / some limited ability to regain X amount of spell slots between long rests
Whatever form it could take, I agree that they should stick to the same "pact" throughout progression OR if they want to mix and match there should be more than 3 options, even in the base PHB 2024
Came up with the same idea in a different thread myself. These are just naturally asking to be made)
Oh yeah, I took some of your suggestions and added some of my own for people in this thread to mull over. Not sure how many people are looking at the other one as well and all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
While I get your point, gods like Anubis or Hindu gods like Ganesha are not as obscure as you might think. The major Hindu deities are venerated by millions, and the most well-known parts of the Egyptian pantheon such as Anubis, Isis, and Ra are also relatively famous.
To build on that, I live in the bay area of California, and the largest demographic in my hometown is Indian. Now I don't know how many people here are practicing Hindus, but to say that "foreign" gods are obscure is demonstrably untrue.
If I'm being blunt, I get the impression that if it were up to some in the playerbase, D&D would be the same Medieval European-style sword and sorcery fantasy with Christian undertones for eternity.
Which is kinda funny, 'cause from my understanding D&D was already incorporating elements from non-European cultures pretty early on.
Guys, if the PHB fiend race is red and has horns and a pointy tail, why is it so out of the question for the PHB celestial race to have light skin and maybe a halo.
You assume I want the fiend race to be just that. I would love to see tieflings that reflect arcanaloths, rakshasa, and other fiends that don't fit that standard Christian devil mold.
But we didn't ever get those.
I don't have a problem with angelic plane-touched. But I do have a problem with that being what celestial plane-touched are pigeon-holed into.
Funnily enough, the first UA for 1dnd has hinted towards that, and specifically mentions Yugoloths as a possible ancestor for Cthonic Tieflings.
Funnily enough, the first UA for 1dnd has hinted towards that, and specifically mentions Yugoloths as a possible ancestor for Cthonic Tieflings.
An appearance guide/table for Chthonic Tieflings (and Abyssal Tieflings for that matter) might be helpful for visualizing what they look like.
I would prefer some examples but leave it open for people to be creative. Then again, people (like myself) have been pretty liberal in how we describe our Tieflings from the start.
An appearance guide/table for Chthonic Tieflings (and Abyssal Tieflings for that matter) might be helpful for visualizing what they look like.
I'm hoping they might do more "group" art for species going forward, i.e- instead of having a singular individual representing the entire species they could have a group of say four of five covering a range of different appearances, options etc. Doesn't need to be exhaustive, but just to give a flavour of what the range is like. So for goliath we might see 4-5 different giant types, half female, maybe some older and younger, different classes etc.
Rather than in 5th edition where you open the page on dragonborn and oh, here's what one dragonborn looks like. Never quite fired the imagination for me, I usually ended up having to go online and do an image search to get more ideas, rather than trying to find any other pictures scattered elsewhere in the book.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I really do not want Ardling to become ANOTHER Fey race or ANOTHER generic beast race. Why is everyone ok with Fey race number 15, or Beast race number 12, but scoff at the idea of Celestial race number 2? Or more specifically THE ONE AND ONLY EXPLICITLY non-Judeo-Christian celestial race. JC said they were trying to do too much with the Ardling, I disagree. I believe the problem was the flavor appearance said one thing to some people and the flavor mechanics said another to those people and those people were not ready for the idea that a celestial player could be something that explicitly could not be similar to the Judeo-Christian concept of divinity in appearance.
If you lose the celestial part, it isn't the Ardling anymore. I would rather it get scrapped entirely than see it become yet another generic beast or fey creature. Having animal qualities WITH more divinity than a single cantrip is 100% the way I feel it needs to go. NOT primal, we have fey and elves for that.
If you have a problem with the amount of half animal races (which is completely valid), then a more beast-focused Ardling should be a good thing. After all, it could effectively replace a large number of beast races that are already in the game and prevent people from demanding new ones for every species on the planet. I also don't see why fey races are so bad; it's a realm of life and beauty with a lot of interesting lore, there's a lot of cool things that can come of it. I argue that not a single fey race is "generic."
A new celestial would be interesting, but I think races in the PHB should be more, well, basic. I like the idea of a more exotic celestial in later sourcebooks, but I prefer the idea of a more basic celestial in the PHB.
I actually don't have a problem with half-animal races. I have a problem with a race that is trying to be all encompassing for a dozen races we already have rather than being its own thing. In this case a celestial/beast. The Ardling was never originally a catch all beast race like some people believe, it was specifically a celestial race that had a new unique physical appearance to evoke feelings of egyption, hindu, North American and other pagan religions which are all over the world of DnD. Its abilities in the first UA were very generic celestial, its appearance wasn't what the modern day Judeo-Christian people think of. It was only after people got up in arms about wanting it to have more bestial stuff did it become what it is now. People want beasts, fine, but I don't want to lose the unique celestial, the old meme "why not both" is just ringing through my ears at this point. In short, it was basic, and then they had to go and make it complicated because people can't accept the explicitly non-Judeo-Christian representation of the Divine. There are probably more religions, especially polytheistic religions, with part animal gods than there are ones with human gods. Worshiping a part animal god dates all the way back to the dawn of civilization in the Mesopotamian years. And even in the America's with gods like Quetzalcoatl and their jaguar god.
Yes, D&D is for everyone. One D&D is very cognizant of inclusivity. While there is room for much customization in future releases, which group do you think they are trying to include in the PHB? They want to appeal to the largest fanbase and I would think that those who want to play animals is far greater than those who want to take the form of obscure foreign gods. Sure Horus and Anubis are depicted with animal heads, but countless others aren't. Should Ardlings have 4 arms each as well like Brahma and Vishnu? A tail instead of legs like Dagon? You can't just say Ardlings are celestials that represent the other categories of non-western gods.
While you argue against a generic class, I think WotC has made great strides in character customization for the cosmetic aspects and even has accommodated size in some races. The representations of deities are more expansive and varied than the beastial varieties - at least beasts can be categorized. By leaning into the primal side it allows the mechanics to be categorized more easily and makes Ardlings playable in all settings. To ensure future compatibility it is important to standardize the mechanics of the class and allow the flavor to meet the players desires.
Wizards absolutely has made great strides for inclusivity. It is the community that is the issue. Wizards presented an explicitly non-Judeo-Christian celestial race and the community is trying to turn it into generic beast/fey race number 200. I don't see why Ardlings can't have tails, it is alluded to in the climber side of things.
Four arms is always kind of an issue from a mechanical standpoint. Since everything else only has 2 arms, but by now you should know that if they made a 4 or 6 arm celestial race I would be all over it.
I love playing fey races and the fey wilds. Archfey is my favorite subclass. Would love to see way more fey in the monster manual, but given how many things have fey ancestry I do not feel we need ANOTHER primal thing.
Four arms is always kind of an issue from a mechanical standpoint. Since everything else only has 2 arms, but by now you should know that if they made a 4 or 6 arm celestial race I would be all over it.
The thri-kreen from Spelljammer has four arms, and I didn't hear any complaints about their design.
More specifically, they represented the thri-kreen's extra arms with this species trait:
Secondary Arms
You have two slightly smaller secondary arms below your primary pair of arms. The secondary arms can manipulate an object, open or close a door or container, pick up or set down a Tiny object, or wield a weapon that has the light property.
Really? I heard tons of complaints about their design.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I mean, one option is to delete most of them and replace them with a family of feats
Planetouched: each lineage gives a cantrip and another benefit at level 1, a level 1 spell at level 3, and a level 2 spell at level 5.
Prerequisites: level 1 only, unless the DM decides events in play justify it.
Exalted, Heavenly, Idyllic, Abyssal, Cthonic, and Infernal are examples. I would also add Aeran, Aquan, Ignan, Terran, and maybe Fey or Shadow.
I don't really want to get rid of Tieflings, etc all together. I think the fact they exist as a distinct species is part of what makes each of them so popular. But that being said, I really do love the idea of a plane touched level 1 feat like this.
We need more level 1 feats. And this helps fill a large gap for players. Both for RP potential, and for allowing better use of the rules for children of different species. It world be much easier to represent a parent who is an Aasimar or Genasi with a feat like this.
It would need to be balanced against Magic Initiate, but that won't be hard. A feature that fits the planer theme could replace a spell. Something simple like a Swim speed for the water elemental plane.
They specifically said the Goliath is for the PHB as counter part to Orc in one of the videos.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Ahh, then that would be the thing I missed.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They should also put Goblins in as a counterpoint to Gnomes & Halflings and Hobgoblins in as a counterpoint to Elves & Dwarves.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
While I get the point, the idea that people will stop asking for their favorite beast person is kind of silly. Not trying to be or rude, just people are never satisfied with what they have and people that like Lizardfolk, Tabaxi and Thri-kreen would never be happy with generic beast person builds 1, 2 or 3.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
That wouldn’t work, people hate it when options they already have are taken away from them. Let Ardlings be celestial, but make them celestial instead of a catch-all beast race. They can even still have bestial aspects, but give them an identity instead of making them so ambiguous that they can have almost any identity. It’s the whole “generic beast people” mentality bing that’s making them feel so… blah.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My biggest gripe with the original Ardling is that WotC pretty much just did a cut and paste of the Aasimar traits, my issue had nothing to do with the lore or appearance. I am not likely to win any arguments, but that is how felt about that version
My biggest gripe with the new version is Generic Beast People are generic. As I said in a post above, it won't really satisfy those that want a Doge person or Birb person or a Foxy person in the long run. All the Beast Species in the MpMotM are really fully compatible with OneDnD (Unlike pretty much all subclasses now).
I still believe that Ardling should just be cosmetically beast with spell like abilities but with a Primal focus. Again, I know that I won't win that argument, but that is how I feel about and how I will likely respond to the Survey at the end of the month.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
This is what I was thinking as well.
I once heard when Stan Lee invented the X-men, it was because he was tired of thinking up origin stories for his new heroes. Like, how many accidents and experiments gone wrong can you really have? So there was just a genetic mutation that could show up in any number of ways.
This would be D&D’s version. Just plop whatever animal head you like on a body and there you go. And now the designers don’t have to come up with some clever name and package of mechanical abilities for every animal. They still could if they want something special, but this could fit the bill for most of the people most of the time.
Which, as I said, is why it’s so blah.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, D&D is for everyone. One D&D is very cognizant of inclusivity. While there is room for much customization in future releases, which group do you think they are trying to include in the PHB? They want to appeal to the largest fanbase and I would think that those who want to play animals is far greater than those who want to take the form of obscure foreign gods. Sure Horus and Anubis are depicted with animal heads, but countless others aren't. Should Ardlings have 4 arms each as well like Brahma and Vishnu? A tail instead of legs like Dagon? You can't just say Ardlings are celestials that represent the other categories of non-western gods.
While you argue against a generic class, I think WotC has made great strides in character customization for the cosmetic aspects and even has accommodated size in some races. The representations of deities are more expansive and varied than the beastial varieties - at least beasts can be categorized. By leaning into the primal side it allows the mechanics to be categorized more easily and makes Ardlings playable in all settings. To ensure future compatibility it is important to standardize the mechanics of the class and allow the flavor to meet the players desires.
Here is another option:
Leave Ardlings solely in the primal realm, lean more heavily into the animal capabilities, perhaps giving them another manifestation at level 5 like the dragonborn. Right now they are underpowered. There have been suggestions in earlier threads - fighting styles, spells from other lists...
Put Aasimar into the PHB opposite tieflings. Replace Scourge Aasimar with another Primal subclass that has "manifest deity" rather than flight or necrotic shroud - where it takes the form of one of a deity (Vishnu's multiple arms, elephant/bird/falcon head - left to DM discretion). Extend the duration and maintain a limited, directed radiant consumption of sorts. That has more role playing implications that would benefit non-martial classes. Manifesting once / long rest doesn't make it OP.
This satisfies the those wanting to play beast folk and those who want a celestial that represents their deity.
Oh yeah, I took some of your suggestions and added some of my own for people in this thread to mull over. Not sure how many people are looking at the other one as well and all.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
To build on that, I live in the bay area of California, and the largest demographic in my hometown is Indian. Now I don't know how many people here are practicing Hindus, but to say that "foreign" gods are obscure is demonstrably untrue.
Which is kinda funny, 'cause from my understanding D&D was already incorporating elements from non-European cultures pretty early on.
Funnily enough, the first UA for 1dnd has hinted towards that, and specifically mentions Yugoloths as a possible ancestor for Cthonic Tieflings.
I would prefer some examples but leave it open for people to be creative. Then again, people (like myself) have been pretty liberal in how we describe our Tieflings from the start.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'm hoping they might do more "group" art for species going forward, i.e- instead of having a singular individual representing the entire species they could have a group of say four of five covering a range of different appearances, options etc. Doesn't need to be exhaustive, but just to give a flavour of what the range is like. So for goliath we might see 4-5 different giant types, half female, maybe some older and younger, different classes etc.
Rather than in 5th edition where you open the page on dragonborn and oh, here's what one dragonborn looks like. Never quite fired the imagination for me, I usually ended up having to go online and do an image search to get more ideas, rather than trying to find any other pictures scattered elsewhere in the book.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Wizards absolutely has made great strides for inclusivity. It is the community that is the issue. Wizards presented an explicitly non-Judeo-Christian celestial race and the community is trying to turn it into generic beast/fey race number 200. I don't see why Ardlings can't have tails, it is alluded to in the climber side of things.
Four arms is always kind of an issue from a mechanical standpoint. Since everything else only has 2 arms, but by now you should know that if they made a 4 or 6 arm celestial race I would be all over it.
I love playing fey races and the fey wilds. Archfey is my favorite subclass. Would love to see way more fey in the monster manual, but given how many things have fey ancestry I do not feel we need ANOTHER primal thing.
Really? I heard tons of complaints about their design.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I like it, it's thematic and makes it a great utility
I don't really want to get rid of Tieflings, etc all together. I think the fact they exist as a distinct species is part of what makes each of them so popular. But that being said, I really do love the idea of a plane touched level 1 feat like this.
We need more level 1 feats. And this helps fill a large gap for players. Both for RP potential, and for allowing better use of the rules for children of different species. It world be much easier to represent a parent who is an Aasimar or Genasi with a feat like this.
It would need to be balanced against Magic Initiate, but that won't be hard. A feature that fits the planer theme could replace a spell. Something simple like a Swim speed for the water elemental plane.