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.
I love the idea of some kind of divine manifestation as a limited power. It's super thematic and different from things we've seen before very often. That's a much cooler visual to me personally than waking around all day looking like a mundane beast person. I would be excited to play a species that could do this instead. But that might just be me.
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 dragonborn any other pictures scattered elsewhere in the book.
Yes! Group art is so much better. The more ways they can show a species the better. With more classes, ages, genders, and variations in appearance. Art helps inspire people so much, and expand their idea of what is possible.
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.
I love the idea of some kind of divine manifestation as a limited power. It's super thematic and different from things we've seen before very often. That's a much cooler visual to me personally than waking around all day looking like a mundane beast person. I would be excited to play a species that could do this instead. But that might just be me.
I'm sorry, but blech. I do not like this idea. I hate it. This does not satisfy me at all in even the slightest.
While I'm not entirely opposed to Ardlings being made into a Beastfolk race I am 100% against the idea of them replacing the need for all the many dedicated animal people races the game already has. Lizardfolk is inherently more lizardy than a Lizard-headed Ardling. No Ardling will ever have the level of turtly as a dedicated tortle race. Replacing them with a generic furry race would just water down a huge range of iconic DnD races into the most basic, generic, and bland way possible. Just imagine wanting to play an Aarakocra and being told to play the flightless, no unarmed attack "flying" Ardling who just gets advantage on Jump checks.
It'd be like wanting to play an elf and being told to just roll a human with pointy ears because it's close enough.
While I'm not entirely opposed to Ardlings being made into a Beastfolk race I am 100% against the idea of them replacing the need for all the many dedicated animal people races the game already has. Lizardfolk is inherently more lizardy than a Lizard-headed Ardling. No Ardling will ever have the level of turtly as a dedicated tortle race. Replacing them with a generic furry race would just water down a huge range of iconic DnD races into the most basic, generic, and bland way possible. Just imagine wanting to play an Aarakocra and being told to play the flightless, no unarmed attack "flying" Ardling who just gets advantage on Jump checks.
It'd be like wanting to play an elf and being told to just roll a human with pointy ears because it's close enough.
I definitely don't want a generic beast species to permanently replace all the other ones either. I think so many of them are very interesting. But I do think a generic species would be good in the PHB. It gives new players the option for an anthropomorphic character, without limiting the animal options, or filling the core book with variants that might still not match what a player has in mind.
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.
I know, but there's no satisfying the insatiable, it's like feeding a black hole. At least ardling offers a compromise. I think this species should be composed of several choices to better reflect the animal they're based upon. A separate choice of movement (climbing, swimming, gilding, dashing, and stalking), senses (keen smell/tracking, keen hearing/sight, darkvision, limited blindsight or tremorsense), and natural weapon (horns, claws, fangs, hooves) or natural armor (hide, shell, or spikes).
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.
Yep. Just two years after D&D was first released, a book detailing the mechanical stats for a bunch of different gods (Hindu, Greek, Norse, Aztec, etc) was released.
The quality and respectfulness of these inclusions is the issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
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.
Yep. Just two years after D&D was first released, a book detailing the mechanical stats for a bunch of different gods (Hindu, Greek, Norse, Aztec, etc) was released.
The quality and respectfulness of these inclusions is the issue.
That's cool, I wish they would do something like that for 5e / One D&D. If the Ardling was set out as part of a greater mythology that incorporates these different gods and realms I would totally support it (I'd personally love a non-Euro-centric setting book). But they don't work as the mirror to the tiefling which is clearly a Judeo-Christian devil. And the lore of the Ardling is that is it descended from the Norse-inspired Beastlands creatures.
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.
Yep. Just two years after D&D was first released, a book detailing the mechanical stats for a bunch of different gods (Hindu, Greek, Norse, Aztec, etc) was released.
The quality and respectfulness of these inclusions is the issue.
That's cool, I wish they would do something like that for 5e / One D&D. If the Ardling was set out as part of a greater mythology that incorporates these different gods and realms I would totally support it (I'd personally love a non-Euro-centric setting book). But they don't work as the mirror to the tiefling which is clearly a Judeo-Christian devil.
I think that’s best left to campaign settings they release for 1DD. Don’t need a set mythology for the game in general. People can homebrew or use a setting book for that. In one official setting Ardling could be part of that greater mythology but in another setting they could be handled much differently.
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.
And others want it to cater to their demographic. That's how Ardlings crept in absent lore. WotC is trying. Hard to please everyone, so identify the largest fanbase for the PHB and do splatbooks for the others.
So, how will large Goliath work? Will their weapons grow and do more damage like Enlarge? Can they grab a shield and use the greatsword one handed?
Traits generally do what they say, so as of this version, no to both; it just means a 10x10' space and the ability to effectively grapple/etc Huge creatures (and immunity to those effects from Small creatures).
So, how will large Goliath work? Will their weapons grow and do more damage like Enlarge? Can they grab a shield and use the greatsword one handed?
Traits generally do what they say, so as of this version, no to both; it just means a 10x10' space and the ability to effectively grapple/etc Huge creatures (and immunity to those effects from Small creatures).
This ability also says you get advantage on Strength checks and 10' added to your Speed during it.
And, with powerful build, it means you count as HUGE for carrying things. I feel like you should be able to pick up cars at that point.
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)
no one notice that Prayer of healing give u short rest effects in 10 minutes now? speed run short rest ? Fast food short rest?
Mandatory Spell.
Love all the Cleric changes it feels fun without even looking at the spells.
I'm not so sure about this change personally; I don't mind the idea of a spell that can trigger a faster short rest (I have catnap on my bard), but it feels a lot like a poor substitute to solving the real mechanical problem of groups/DMs that don't handle short rests well, or more specifically don't take as many as the game is intended to have.
And, with powerful build, it means you count as HUGE for carrying things. I feel like you should be able to pick up cars at that point.
So does having "huge" strength increase your damage? Does "Large" size mean I can grip that great sword with one hand? As written, no - but should it?
You know, it's a fair question, because DnD 5e has always a hard time making balanced rules for a PC getting bigger than Medium size. There are a lot of things that should be true, but never are. By RAW, for the new Goliath, no they couldn't do anything that isn't explicitly written:
Large Form. Starting at 5th level, you gain the ability to supernaturally grow. As a Bonus Action, you change your Size to Large, provided you’re in a big enough space. This transformation lasts for 10 minutes or until you end it as a Bonus Action. During that duration, you have Advantage on Strength Checks, and your Speed increases by 10 feet. Once you use this trait, you can’t use it again until you finish a Long Rest.
Interestingly, you might expect this to be similar to the Enlarge/Reduce spell, but it's really not (Unless the spell will change in the future too). You get the advantage on Strength Checks AND all Strength Saving throws (Goliaths already get it on some), your weapon just grows, and you add 1d4 damage. But there is no speed increase here:
Enlarge. The target's size doubles in all dimensions, and its weight is multiplied by eight. This growth increases its size by one category-- from Medium to Large, for example. If there isn't enough room for the target to double its size, the creature or object attains the maximum possible size in the space available. Until the spell ends, the target also has advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws. The target's weapons also grow to match its new size. While these weapons are enlarged, the target's attacks with them deal 1d4 extra damage.
And larger monsters are handled another way with regards to damage. You can see how their damage is multiplied as they get larger if you look at the Ogre and the Hill Giant. Both use a Great club, which is 1d8 damage for a PC. But the Ogre (Large) deals 2d8 damage + bonuses. And the Hill Giant (Huge) deals 3d8 + bonuses.
All 3 of these size variations come with some of the same benefits. They make it harder to Grapple them. They take up more space. And they can carry more weight. I'm not sure why they chose the route they did with the Goliath except that might be how the Elarge spell is going to work. But I'm sure it has to do with balance.
To answer the question of how much a Goliath can lift, we can do the math. It depends on their Strength so I'll look at a few different scores to give you an idea. The basic rule is that you can comfortably carry 15 times your Strength score, and Push, Drag, or Lift 30 times the score. Every size over Medium doubles the amount of the size below it. So a Goliath normally doubles the total, as they are considered Large for this calculation:
I kind of feel the size modifiers should be larger than double. Those numbers feel really small for something that is representing a 20 foot being. For Goliath in particular its not necessarily bad, they aren't actually bigger just an ability that mimics it, and lets face it they are a PC, but for a actual huge giant, or dragon or whatever it seems really weak.
I love the idea of some kind of divine manifestation as a limited power. It's super thematic and different from things we've seen before very often. That's a much cooler visual to me personally than waking around all day looking like a mundane beast person. I would be excited to play a species that could do this instead. But that might just be me.
Yes! Group art is so much better. The more ways they can show a species the better. With more classes, ages, genders, and variations in appearance. Art helps inspire people so much, and expand their idea of what is possible.
I'm sorry, but blech. I do not like this idea. I hate it. This does not satisfy me at all in even the slightest.
While I'm not entirely opposed to Ardlings being made into a Beastfolk race I am 100% against the idea of them replacing the need for all the many dedicated animal people races the game already has. Lizardfolk is inherently more lizardy than a Lizard-headed Ardling. No Ardling will ever have the level of turtly as a dedicated tortle race. Replacing them with a generic furry race would just water down a huge range of iconic DnD races into the most basic, generic, and bland way possible. Just imagine wanting to play an Aarakocra and being told to play the flightless, no unarmed attack "flying" Ardling who just gets advantage on Jump checks.
It'd be like wanting to play an elf and being told to just roll a human with pointy ears because it's close enough.
I definitely don't want a generic beast species to permanently replace all the other ones either. I think so many of them are very interesting. But I do think a generic species would be good in the PHB. It gives new players the option for an anthropomorphic character, without limiting the animal options, or filling the core book with variants that might still not match what a player has in mind.
I know, but there's no satisfying the insatiable, it's like feeding a black hole. At least ardling offers a compromise. I think this species should be composed of several choices to better reflect the animal they're based upon. A separate choice of movement (climbing, swimming, gilding, dashing, and stalking), senses (keen smell/tracking, keen hearing/sight, darkvision, limited blindsight or tremorsense), and natural weapon (horns, claws, fangs, hooves) or natural armor (hide, shell, or spikes).
Yep. Just two years after D&D was first released, a book detailing the mechanical stats for a bunch of different gods (Hindu, Greek, Norse, Aztec, etc) was released.
The quality and respectfulness of these inclusions is the issue.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That's cool, I wish they would do something like that for 5e / One D&D. If the Ardling was set out as part of a greater mythology that incorporates these different gods and realms I would totally support it (I'd personally love a non-Euro-centric setting book). But they don't work as the mirror to the tiefling which is clearly a Judeo-Christian devil. And the lore of the Ardling is that is it descended from the Norse-inspired Beastlands creatures.
I think that’s best left to campaign settings they release for 1DD. Don’t need a set mythology for the game in general. People can homebrew or use a setting book for that. In one official setting Ardling could be part of that greater mythology but in another setting they could be handled much differently.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
And others want it to cater to their demographic. That's how Ardlings crept in absent lore. WotC is trying. Hard to please everyone, so identify the largest fanbase for the PHB and do splatbooks for the others.
So, how will large Goliath work? Will their weapons grow and do more damage like Enlarge? Can they grab a shield and use the greatsword one handed?
Traits generally do what they say, so as of this version, no to both; it just means a 10x10' space and the ability to effectively grapple/etc Huge creatures (and immunity to those effects from Small creatures).
This ability also says you get advantage on Strength checks and 10' added to your Speed during it.
And, with powerful build, it means you count as HUGE for carrying things. I feel like you should be able to pick up cars at that point.
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)
Short rest should be 10 min. by default.
So does having "huge" strength increase your damage? Does "Large" size mean I can grip that great sword with one hand? As written, no - but should it?
You know, it's a fair question, because DnD 5e has always a hard time making balanced rules for a PC getting bigger than Medium size. There are a lot of things that should be true, but never are. By RAW, for the new Goliath, no they couldn't do anything that isn't explicitly written:
Large Form. Starting at 5th level, you gain the
ability to supernaturally grow. As a Bonus
Action, you change your Size to Large, provided
you’re in a big enough space. This
transformation lasts for 10 minutes or until you
end it as a Bonus Action. During that duration,
you have Advantage on Strength Checks, and
your Speed increases by 10 feet. Once you use
this trait, you can’t use it again until you finish a
Long Rest.
Interestingly, you might expect this to be similar to the Enlarge/Reduce spell, but it's really not (Unless the spell will change in the future too). You get the advantage on Strength Checks AND all Strength Saving throws (Goliaths already get it on some), your weapon just grows, and you add 1d4 damage. But there is no speed increase here:
Enlarge. The target's size doubles in all dimensions, and its weight is multiplied by eight. This growth increases its size by one category-- from Medium to Large, for example. If there isn't enough room for the target to double its size, the creature or object attains the maximum possible size in the space available. Until the spell ends, the target also has advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws. The target's weapons also grow to match its new size. While these weapons are enlarged, the target's attacks with them deal 1d4 extra damage.
And larger monsters are handled another way with regards to damage. You can see how their damage is multiplied as they get larger if you look at the Ogre and the Hill Giant. Both use a Great club, which is 1d8 damage for a PC. But the Ogre (Large) deals 2d8 damage + bonuses. And the Hill Giant (Huge) deals 3d8 + bonuses.
All 3 of these size variations come with some of the same benefits. They make it harder to Grapple them. They take up more space. And they can carry more weight. I'm not sure why they chose the route they did with the Goliath except that might be how the Elarge spell is going to work. But I'm sure it has to do with balance.
To answer the question of how much a Goliath can lift, we can do the math. It depends on their Strength so I'll look at a few different scores to give you an idea. The basic rule is that you can comfortably carry 15 times your Strength score, and Push, Drag, or Lift 30 times the score. Every size over Medium doubles the amount of the size below it. So a Goliath normally doubles the total, as they are considered Large for this calculation:
Strength 10 - Carry 300 lbs. Push/Drag/Lift - 600 lbs.
Strength 15 Carry 450 lbs. Push/Drag/Lift - 900 lbs.
Strength 20 - Carry 600 lbs. Push/Drag/Lift - 1,200 lbs.
If they use Large Form to actually get Large, they count as HUGE for carrying capacity. So we double these numbers again.
Strength 10 - Carry 600 lbs. Push/Drag/Lift - 1,200 lbs.
Strength 15 Carry 900 lbs. Push/Drag/Lift - 1,800 lbs.
Strength 20 - Carry 1,200 lbs. Push/Drag/Lift - 2,400 lbs.
That means a Goliath with 20 Strength and using their Large Form can lift over a ton of weight.
I kind of feel the size modifiers should be larger than double. Those numbers feel really small for something that is representing a 20 foot being. For Goliath in particular its not necessarily bad, they aren't actually bigger just an ability that mimics it, and lets face it they are a PC, but for a actual huge giant, or dragon or whatever it seems really weak.
Doing remotely realistic handling of size and weight and strength leaves us needing something more like a 3.x strength rule.