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.
I quite like the blending of animalistic and celestial traits that the Aardling had, honestly. I felt it needed a tiny little something more before, but they definitely overcorrected way too far in leaning into the animal aspect at the expense of the celestial, IMO; this version feels super anemic.
I would be very surprised if a DM only allowed the specific cosmetic options listed as examples.
But yes, that is a good point. New players and new DMs might not know that an animal head is an option. Or how far they can bend cosmetic changes. And adding it as sample descriptions along with the art would help make it more obvious. And inspire more people to think outside the box. So I'm all for it.
I think it would be harder for people to guess you could make a half-Ardling to get the powers without any animal traits at all. But more importantly they were mechanically so similar to Aasimar in the first draft that there wasn't any point. In fact, I think they could take those mechanics and use them to make a better generic Aasiamar.
Then they can still make the new Aardling unique. They aren't especially overpowered in this version. I think they could give them something else divine, without just making it more spells. I would also love to see one more animal archetype option given. I think they're missing something to cover the animals that are just big and bulky. Like hogs, elephants, moose, etc. Where is the option for the husky ones? The ones that don't fly, swim, climb, or run fast.
Edit - sorry for the confusion but this was meant to be in reply to Aquilontune. I just didn't quote it. And a lot of people were faster at typing than me haha.
Ya 100% if they did something like this I probably wouldn't care if we had Ardling or what it was. I care because GM's can care, especially newer GM's. Players can care too. Imagine doing that and the other players are new and look at you funny because "that's not one of the Aasimar options? You aren't playing an Aasimar." Because those things happen, especially among less experienced groups. The newer and less experience in table top games the player or GM is the less they are familiar with flavoring things the way they want.
I would love all this. Anything that makes a little more divine would be AMAZING, I am just slightly uninventive and just look to what we have already in the PHB with Elf and Tiefling and go there is the primal and arcane, can I get ardling for Celestial? It is also because of the idea that PHB races should be "Generic", though I would argue the new Goliath is less generic than the old one.
Mechanically having beast and celestial both stand out in Ardling is what I ultimately want. Because I do not believe for a second they are going to try and reprint Aasimar right after MotM came out just to specifically add the "animal deity" to the cosmetic list for clarity.
Edit: and to be clear, I would not at all be surprised if a stickler veteran GM denied the animal head thing on an Aasimar as it is written. All of the options listed are very feint and don't stand out nearly as much as a head different from the body. Like option 1 is freckles, 2 is some what glowey eyes, so on and so forth. Number 6 sounds like the biggest, but I even see it as kind of the Twilight Vampire sparkles effectively. So, while you may be surprised by a GM denying the animal head on Aasimar, I wouldn't be as they may consider it "too much" of a physical appearance change, it isn't 'mute' enough if you will. I am struggling to find the words, I am hoping I am making some semblance of sense. It is kind of like "I don't think a GM would have a wild magic sorcerer in their game and never let them roll on the wild magic chart". There is a reason they are removing things like that from the game.
Edit 2: to go along with some of the other things you are talking about with the "Husky ones" it is also REALLY weird that the option that has Toad and Crocodile as options comes with cold resistance. Why does my reptile headed person based on Sobek have cold resistance?
...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.
Quetzalcoatl, Xolotl, Tlaloc, Tepeyollotl (who may also be Tezcatlipoca in disguise), itzpapalotl, and the the Centzon Totochtin among others.
Sorry. Part of a personal project of mine. Had to flex for a moment.😁
...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.
Quetzalcoatl, Xolotl, Tlaloc, Tepeyollotl (who may also be Tezcatlipoca in disguise), itzpapalotl, and the the Centzon Totochtin among others.
Sorry. Part of a personal project of mine. Had to flex for a moment.😁
Ya it has been like 8 years since I took Ancient American history. Fascinating subject, but after a while you start to forget. Only reason I remember Quetzalcoatl's name is because it is ALSO a summon in FF8 lol. But ya that whole pantheon and history was just as fascinating as any other ancient civ, if not more in some cases.
...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.
Quetzalcoatl, Xolotl, Tlaloc, Tepeyollotl (who may also be Tezcatlipoca in disguise), itzpapalotl, and the the Centzon Totochtin among others.
Sorry. Part of a personal project of mine. Had to flex for a moment.😁
Aztec mythology is something special. Not many other pantheons have gods like Xipe Totec. Also known as "The Flayed God". (Please don't ask why he's called that. I wish I didn't look up the answer.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Aztec mythology is something special. Not many other pantheons have gods like Xipe Totec. Also known as "The Flayed God". (Please don't ask why he's called that. I wish I didn't look up the answer.)
You definitely aren't going to want to look too deeply into Tlazolteotl then...🤢
Guys I think we have gotten a little off-subject at this point. And people with weak stomachs, we implore you do not look these guys up. The first batch is fine, but the latter will be an issue for the squeamish.
I would be very surprised if a DM only allowed the specific cosmetic options listed as examples.
But yes, that is a good point. New players and new DMs might not know that an animal head is an option. Or how far they can bend cosmetic changes. And adding it as sample descriptions along with the art would help make it more obvious. And inspire more people to think outside the box. So I'm all for it.
I think it would be harder for people to guess you could make a half-Ardling to get the powers without any animal traits at all. But more importantly they were mechanically so similar to Aasimar in the first draft that there wasn't any point. In fact, I think they could take those mechanics and use them to make a better generic Aasiamar.
Then they can still make the new Aardling unique. They aren't especially overpowered in this version. I think they could give them something else divine, without just making it more spells. I would also love to see one more animal archetype option given. I think they're missing something to cover the animals that are just big and bulky. Like hogs, elephants, moose, etc. Where is the option for the husky ones? The ones that don't fly, swim, climb, or run fast.
Edit - sorry for the confusion but this was meant to be in reply to Aquilontune. I just didn't quote it. And a lot of people were faster at typing than me haha.
It also very possible to put Aasimar into the PHB and include information on the variety of celestial beings that they could draw power and appearance from.
Mechanically having beast and celestial both stand out in Ardling is what I ultimately want. Because I do not believe for a second they are going to try and reprint Aasimar right after MotM came out just to specifically add the "animal deity" to the cosmetic list for clarity.
I feel like I must point out that they are reprinting Orc and not changing anything about it. Goliath will be a reprint with actual changes. Aasimar could indeed be reprinted with a few alterations.
Edit: I do get your over all point and can empathize with how you feel about Ardlings.
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.
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.
That would be my guess too. That and they'll probably treat them like Fizban's Dragonborn rather than replace the base Goliath, I think.
Aztec mythology is something special. Not many other pantheons have gods like Xipe Totec. Also known as "The Flayed God". (Please don't ask why he's called that. I wish I didn't look up the answer.)
You definitely aren't going to want to look too deeply into Tlazolteotl then...🤢
Funnily enough, I was just flipping through AD&D's Deities and Demigods and came across her description, and looked her up just before you posted this. Which was also a mistake.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Mechanically having beast and celestial both stand out in Ardling is what I ultimately want. Because I do not believe for a second they are going to try and reprint Aasimar right after MotM came out just to specifically add the "animal deity" to the cosmetic list for clarity.
I feel like I must point out that they are reprinting Orc and not changing anything about it. Goliath will be a reprint with actual changes. Aasimar could indeed be reprinted with a few alterations.
Edit: I do get your over all point and can empathize with how you feel about Ardlings.
Something to also be clear about, while this is true. The specific creation of the Ardling so soon after the Aasimar's release, which specifically didn't have the animal head as a listed cosmetic option, may mean that wizards had never intended Aasimars to function in the way that some are using in this context as it is. While we can fight for Aasimar to gain the head thing of Ardlings, current and previous intent does not appear that Aasimar have it by default. But as they have shown, intent < rules written for them unless it is fully game breaking. All of these things are, of course options, but as it stands I am going to go on with what has been written and not what is in GM control, and going to talk about the option wizards is presenting us and how to improve it specifically rather than improving an option they aren't having us test. So that means I leave the argument as it was, I want Ardling to be the Celestial/beast option, they may have gone to far celestial on round one, they are too far beast on round 2, and not particularly strong beast at that. Just a little more dab of celestial is what I want, if others want more beast and Aasimar to take Ardlings place with new cosmetics honestly that would also be great.
As some may already be able to tell Ardling was, by far, my most surprising thing to see in any UA and my most loved thing, not because animal person, but because aesthetically unique celestial in a hobby that is in dire need of more celestials, but you guys already knew that. I am really just crossing my fingers at this point.
Edit: a good example is the Aarakocra and Owlin. There is nothing in the Aarakocra that says they CANT be an Owl, and you can absolutely make them an Owl, but that wasn't the type of bird they were going for when they made Aarakocra otherwise they wouldn't have felt the need to make Owlin.
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.
Jeremy Crawford said in the video that they've been thinking about adding the Goliath to the PHB for awhile now. So, unless he was just lying for no reason, I think this is intended for the PHB. But Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants might do something with them, too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Aztec mythology is something special. Not many other pantheons have gods like Xipe Totec. Also known as "The Flayed God". (Please don't ask why he's called that. I wish I didn't look up the answer.)
You definitely aren't going to want to look too deeply into Tlazolteotl then...🤢
Funnily enough, I was just flipping through AD&D's Deities and Demigods and came across her description, and looked her up just before you posted this. Which was also a mistake.
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.
Jeremy Crawford said in the video that they've been thinking about adding the Goliath to the PHB for awhile now. So, unless he was just lying for no reason, I think this is intended for the PHB. But Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants might do something with them, too.
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.
With arelings can you play as whatever you want to. Like infinite sub-races. I feel bad for the people who will need to put them into the books if there is. I think it would be cool to play as any humanoid animal you want to.
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.
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.
I quite like the blending of animalistic and celestial traits that the Aardling had, honestly. I felt it needed a tiny little something more before, but they definitely overcorrected way too far in leaning into the animal aspect at the expense of the celestial, IMO; this version feels super anemic.
Ya 100% if they did something like this I probably wouldn't care if we had Ardling or what it was. I care because GM's can care, especially newer GM's. Players can care too. Imagine doing that and the other players are new and look at you funny because "that's not one of the Aasimar options? You aren't playing an Aasimar." Because those things happen, especially among less experienced groups. The newer and less experience in table top games the player or GM is the less they are familiar with flavoring things the way they want.
I would love all this. Anything that makes a little more divine would be AMAZING, I am just slightly uninventive and just look to what we have already in the PHB with Elf and Tiefling and go there is the primal and arcane, can I get ardling for Celestial? It is also because of the idea that PHB races should be "Generic", though I would argue the new Goliath is less generic than the old one.
Mechanically having beast and celestial both stand out in Ardling is what I ultimately want. Because I do not believe for a second they are going to try and reprint Aasimar right after MotM came out just to specifically add the "animal deity" to the cosmetic list for clarity.
Edit: and to be clear, I would not at all be surprised if a stickler veteran GM denied the animal head thing on an Aasimar as it is written. All of the options listed are very feint and don't stand out nearly as much as a head different from the body. Like option 1 is freckles, 2 is some what glowey eyes, so on and so forth. Number 6 sounds like the biggest, but I even see it as kind of the Twilight Vampire sparkles effectively. So, while you may be surprised by a GM denying the animal head on Aasimar, I wouldn't be as they may consider it "too much" of a physical appearance change, it isn't 'mute' enough if you will. I am struggling to find the words, I am hoping I am making some semblance of sense. It is kind of like "I don't think a GM would have a wild magic sorcerer in their game and never let them roll on the wild magic chart". There is a reason they are removing things like that from the game.
Edit 2: to go along with some of the other things you are talking about with the "Husky ones" it is also REALLY weird that the option that has Toad and Crocodile as options comes with cold resistance. Why does my reptile headed person based on Sobek have cold resistance?
Quetzalcoatl, Xolotl, Tlaloc, Tepeyollotl (who may also be Tezcatlipoca in disguise), itzpapalotl, and the the Centzon Totochtin among others.
Sorry. Part of a personal project of mine. Had to flex for a moment.😁
Ya it has been like 8 years since I took Ancient American history. Fascinating subject, but after a while you start to forget. Only reason I remember Quetzalcoatl's name is because it is ALSO a summon in FF8 lol. But ya that whole pantheon and history was just as fascinating as any other ancient civ, if not more in some cases.
Aztec mythology is something special. Not many other pantheons have gods like Xipe Totec. Also known as "The Flayed God". (Please don't ask why he's called that. I wish I didn't look up the answer.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You definitely aren't going to want to look too deeply into Tlazolteotl then...🤢
Guys I think we have gotten a little off-subject at this point. And people with weak stomachs, we implore you do not look these guys up. The first batch is fine, but the latter will be an issue for the squeamish.
It also very possible to put Aasimar into the PHB and include information on the variety of celestial beings that they could draw power and appearance from.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I feel like I must point out that they are reprinting Orc and not changing anything about it. Goliath will be a reprint with actual changes. Aasimar could indeed be reprinted with a few alterations.
Edit: I do get your over all point and can empathize with how you feel about Ardlings.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
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.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That would be my guess too. That and they'll probably treat them like Fizban's Dragonborn rather than replace the base Goliath, I think.
Funnily enough, I was just flipping through AD&D's Deities and Demigods and came across her description, and looked her up just before you posted this. Which was also a mistake.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Something to also be clear about, while this is true. The specific creation of the Ardling so soon after the Aasimar's release, which specifically didn't have the animal head as a listed cosmetic option, may mean that wizards had never intended Aasimars to function in the way that some are using in this context as it is. While we can fight for Aasimar to gain the head thing of Ardlings, current and previous intent does not appear that Aasimar have it by default. But as they have shown, intent < rules written for them unless it is fully game breaking. All of these things are, of course options, but as it stands I am going to go on with what has been written and not what is in GM control, and going to talk about the option wizards is presenting us and how to improve it specifically rather than improving an option they aren't having us test. So that means I leave the argument as it was, I want Ardling to be the Celestial/beast option, they may have gone to far celestial on round one, they are too far beast on round 2, and not particularly strong beast at that. Just a little more dab of celestial is what I want, if others want more beast and Aasimar to take Ardlings place with new cosmetics honestly that would also be great.
As some may already be able to tell Ardling was, by far, my most surprising thing to see in any UA and my most loved thing, not because animal person, but because aesthetically unique celestial in a hobby that is in dire need of more celestials, but you guys already knew that. I am really just crossing my fingers at this point.
Edit: a good example is the Aarakocra and Owlin. There is nothing in the Aarakocra that says they CANT be an Owl, and you can absolutely make them an Owl, but that wasn't the type of bird they were going for when they made Aarakocra otherwise they wouldn't have felt the need to make Owlin.
Jeremy Crawford said in the video that they've been thinking about adding the Goliath to the PHB for awhile now. So, unless he was just lying for no reason, I think this is intended for the PHB. But Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants might do something with them, too.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Oh, ye cruel fates.
Huh, I must have missed that. That's interesting.
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.
With arelings can you play as whatever you want to. Like infinite sub-races. I feel bad for the people who will need to put them into the books if there is. I think it would be cool to play as any humanoid animal you want to.
Characters (Links!):
Faelin Nighthollow - 7th Sojourn
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.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?