So, in latest UA JC said that community mostly expressed interest in beast part of ardling rather than their celestial heritage, rightfully noting that aasimar already occupy the niche of celestial kin. The new ardlings have options that aer more in line with beasts, offering different forms of movement.
What would you sayy if I suggest that this idea went one step further to its logical conclusion - that ardlings fully became a catch-all beastfolk species (perhaps even renamed into "beastfolk") with ties to Feywild. In order to refpresent the multitude of beast forms, the species would be composed of several features - aspects - with options within each of them:
Beast movement: climbing, swimming, dashing, flying (or rather gliding), prowling.
Beast senses: keen smell/tracking, keen hearing and sight, blindsight out to 10 ft, tremorsense, low light vision
That way, a single species could substitute for all the beast options that bred without stop in all the possible supplements. Want an eagle person - pick flying, keen hearing and sight, and claws. Want a fox person - prowling, keen smell, bite. Squirrel Girl? Climbing, low light vision, claws. Rocksteady? Dashing, keen smell, thick hide. Kid Venison? Dashing, keen hearing and sight, horns. It's but a rough draft, of course. I'm thinking of a fourth feature, something about feral instincts like pack tactics (though not as powerful as monster variant) or ambusher.
How do you like the idea of ardlings becoming the catch-all beastfolk for PHB?
They compete with the already existing aasimar for a place as the tiefling opposite. While also trying to be a build a bear catchall beastfolk race, despite tons of those already being in game and doing the job better and in a more interesting manner.
Make aardlings into an aasimar subrace, representing a connection to archons and guardinals.
So here are my qualms with removing the Ardling's celestial ties in order to turn them into a generic catch-all Beastfolk:
Their celestial ties and how they came to be part beast part human is one of the most interesting and flavorful parts of the Ardling's lore, I don't want to see it removed.
Making one species to cover all the billion different types of Beastfolk and their mechanical intricacies is basically impossible. I would rather have multiple different types of Beastfolk than one poorly designed one.
Harengon and Tabaxi and other Beastfolk like it are awesome because their lore and abilities were explored in-depth and given enough time to shine. I love those two species and all the cool stuff we can do, and we wouldn't have them if Ardling was a catch-all Beastfolk.
Hard pass on "one definitive Beastfolk" if that means not printing rules for individual animal person races like Tabaxi and Lizardfolk. Some of these beast races are as iconic to DnD as any of the billion elf variants we have.
If Ardlings are made a Beastfolk race they need their own unique lore that is separate in a meaningful way from the existing animal races. A lizard Ardling should be visually, culturally, and mechanically distinct from a Lizardfolk in the lore of the world so as not to be a replacement for a dedicated Lizardfolk option.
As written currently the Ardlings have that already. A lizard Ardling would have a lizard's head sitting on a scaled human body with no tail and would have sharp claws for climbing. Very different from the fully bipedal lizard person with a deadly bite attack, armor-like scales, and a focus on swimming that the Lizardfolk represents. That clear visual and mechanical distinction should remain. If you let Ardlings be indistinguishable from existing Lizardfolk it diminishes what makes Lizardfolk special in the worlds they exist in.
And if the intent is to make Ardlings a way to custom make any existing beast person race then... Why stop at the beast folk? Just add a list of traits with appropriate point costs and let players design their own race wholesale.
1. 50% of People really want a generic beast person option, for good or for ilk. I am hoping everyone who is saying they want one realizes even if we do, we are still gonna get specific beast people options and things like lizard folk and tabaxi aren't going anywhere.
And
2. Those same 50% either do not know, or do not care what the NAME Ardling naturally evokes. First part the ling suffix like in Tiefling and glitchling heavily suggests the creature originated in the outer planes, just like the aforementioned species. And the Ard envokes the gARDidnals which are a beastial upper plane good celestial. So the Ardling name basically says celestial beast person. If it isnt going to be that, you should change the name.
1. 50% of People really want a generic beast person option, for good or for ilk. I am hoping everyone who is saying they want one realizes even if we do, we are still gonna get specific beast people options and things like lizard folk and tabaxi aren't going anywhere.
And
2. Those same 50% either do not know, or do not care what the NAME Ardling naturally evokes. First part the ling suffix like in Tiefling and glitchling heavily suggests the creature originated in the outer planes, just like the aforementioned species. And the Ard envokes the gARDidnals which are a beastial upper plane good celestial. So the Ardling name basically says celestial beast person. If it isnt going to be that, you should change the name.
As part of the 50 percent you are addressing, yes I do understand that there will still be other specific beast people options and think that is good. However, it would be impossible to create a different beast person to satisfy everyone, so I think having a general template species would be useful. I tend not to be interested in playing these kinds of characters, but I believe a lot of others are. As to point 2, the name can easily be changed.
I also have nothing against a second non-western style celestial species, but I personally don't think it is as needed as a catch-all beast person option. Of course, there will also be a limit on how many choices can be offered in the new players handbook and I'm not certain either is important enough to really warrant inclusion. At the same time, I am willing to admit that my preferences for what will be warranted may not necessarily reflect popular opinion.
1. 50% of People really want a generic beast person option, for good or for ilk. I am hoping everyone who is saying they want one realizes even if we do, we are still gonna get specific beast people options and things like lizard folk and tabaxi aren't going anywhere.
And
2. Those same 50% either do not know, or do not care what the NAME Ardling naturally evokes. First part the ling suffix like in Tiefling and glitchling heavily suggests the creature originated in the outer planes, just like the aforementioned species. And the Ard envokes the gARDidnals which are a beastial upper plane good celestial. So the Ardling name basically says celestial beast person. If it isnt going to be that, you should change the name.
As part of the 50 percent you are addressing, yes I do understand that there will still be other specific beast people options and think that is good. However, it would be impossible to create a different beast person to satisfy everyone, so I think having a general template species would be useful. I tend not to be interested in playing these kinds of characters, but I believe a lot of others are. As to point 2, the name can easily be changed.
I also have nothing against a second non-western style celestial species, but I personally don't think it is as needed as a catch-all beast person option. Of course, there will also be a limit on how many choices can be offered in the new players handbook and I'm not certain either is important enough to really warrant inclusion. At the same time, I am willing to admit that my preferences for what will be warranted may not necessarily reflect popular opinion.
Well you kind of conceded to my point with the name change thing. I am cool with a generic beast person or a flexible fey/primal beast person for people to play with. That is great, but it is specifically NOT an Ardling.
And that is the question. Do you want ARDLING to be a general beast person? Not "do you want a generic beast person?". The name matters.
Hard pass on "one definitive Beastfolk" if that means not printing rules for individual animal person races like Tabaxi and Lizardfolk. Some of these beast races are as iconic to DnD as any of the billion elf variants we have.
If Ardlings are made a Beastfolk race they need their own unique lore that is separate in a meaningful way from the existing animal races. A lizard Ardling should be visually, culturally, and mechanically distinct from a Lizardfolk in the lore of the world so as not to be a replacement for a dedicated Lizardfolk option.
As written currently the Ardlings have that already. A lizard Ardling would have a lizard's head sitting on a scaled human body with no tail and would have sharp claws for climbing. Very different from the fully bipedal lizard person with a deadly bite attack, armor-like scales, and a focus on swimming that the Lizardfolk represents. That clear visual and mechanical distinction should remain. If you let Ardlings be indistinguishable from existing Lizardfolk it diminishes what makes Lizardfolk special in the worlds they exist in.
And if the intent is to make Ardlings a way to custom make any existing beast person race then... Why stop at the beast folk? Just add a list of traits with appropriate point costs and let players design their own race wholesale.
But how different are Iranians from Germans, and Kenyans from Chinese? These different people have not only cultural, but even clearly recognizable physiological differences... and yet, we're all one species. We all have the same origin. And this is the sort of the idea of beastfolk: while they may have starkly different appearance, cultures, history, and way of thinking, the fact that they would all share the same roots, is... heartwarming, I guess. One of the reasons I like this idea.
But how different are Iranians from Germans, and Kenyans from Chinese? These different people have not only cultural, but even clearly recognizable physiological differences... and yet, we're all one species. We all have the same origin. And this is the sort of the idea of beastfolk: while they may have starkly different appearance, cultures, history, and way of thinking, the fact that they would all share the same roots, is... heartwarming, I guess. One of the reasons I like this idea.
No. This is the very definition of homogenization and removal of unique flavor from the game. It's also very untrue to the settings of DnD where each individual species was created separately by separate gods. They are no more related than they are to elves, dwarves, or dragonborn and pushing them all under a single umbrella is a massive disservice to their unique cultures, biologies, and racial fantasy.
All I'm seeing is people trying to throw out my favorite race options and replace it with a generic build-a-bear mechanic because animal people are somehow a lesser fantasy than humans with long lives and pointy ears or short bearded humans. If Halflings can be a totally unique, separate race from gnomes or humans then Lizardfolk deserve to have a totally unique spot in the book from Tabaxi.
But how different are Iranians from Germans, and Kenyans from Chinese? These different people have not only cultural, but even clearly recognizable physiological differences... and yet, we're all one species. We all have the same origin. And this is the sort of the idea of beastfolk: while they may have starkly different appearance, cultures, history, and way of thinking, the fact that they would all share the same roots, is... heartwarming, I guess. One of the reasons I like this idea.
No. This is the very definition of homogenization and removal of unique flavor from the game. It's also very untrue to the settings of DnD where each individual species was created separately by separate gods. They are no more related than they are to elves, dwarves, or dragonborn and pushing them all under a single umbrella is a massive disservice to their unique cultures, biologies, and racial fantasy.
All I'm seeing is people trying to throw out my favorite race options and replace it with a generic build-a-bear mechanic because animal people are somehow a lesser fantasy than humans with long lives and pointy ears or short bearded humans. If Halflings can be a totally unique, separate race from gnomes or humans then Lizardfolk deserve to have a totally unique spot in the book from Tabaxi.
But the fact is that there is no way to fit all of the different beast folk that exist in 5e into the Players Handbook. In fact, even with supplements, there is no way to satisfy everyone's desires for the variety of anthropomorphic animal characters. A generalized beast-folk option in the Players Handbook would at least give people a chance to craft something that resembles the concept they have. While the ideas that have been published in the UA or discussed here may certainly not be completely satisfactory for this effort they allow players to build towards what they want. Extra "powers" that someone's fantasy beast/person hybrid might have could be represented by choosing the proper first level feat. Lore is what a backstory is for in this case, as it is ridiculous to expect the publishers to be able to take into account lore from every single human culture when creating species. With all this being said, I would certainly expect that specific beast-folk species, particularly ones that have a history as characters in previous editions of DnD, will certainly be fleshed out and offered in supplements.
A similar issue arises with the issue of celestials and other higher-planes character species. It is impossible to build enough to encompass the diversity of human cultures and historic beliefs. I believe that the designers are hoping to create species that can satisfy the widest range of fantasies possible. However, due to the history of the game as well as the fact that it is being created in a US culture that, while one of the most diverse on Earth, is still dominated by European traditions, these traditions will still land up being most prominent.
I like D&D and I like Anime, but I'm not keen on D&D basing itself too much on Anime and the whole beast-races/species/folk/kin direction feels way too generic anime fantasy & isekai for me.
I personally liked Aardlings being these Egyptian god-like race of celestial. Giving Aardlings a link to their bestial heritage isn't a terrible idea but they still, in my opinion, need a strong connection to being celestial still. I don't think they needed to lose their 1st and 2nd level divine spells, tho I do like the ability to switch the cantrip on a long rest for another divine cantrip.
Personally I like this idea of your heritage/species giving you more as you level-up, they don't need to be big things but I wouldn't mind if like in the case of species with natural magical power that they might get a 3rd level spell at 10 and a 4th level spell at level 17. But I guess that is a part of a larger discussion on species in general.
I like D&D and I like Anime, but I'm not keen on D&D basing itself too much on Anime and the whole beast-races/species/folk/kin direction feels way too generic anime fantasy & isekai for me.
I personally liked Aardlings being these Egyptian god-like race of celestial. Giving Aardlings a link to their bestial heritage isn't a terrible idea but they still, in my opinion, need a strong connection to being celestial still. I don't think they needed to lose their 1st and 2nd level divine spells, tho I do like the ability to switch the cantrip on a long rest for another divine cantrip.
Personally I like this idea of your heritage/species giving you more as you level-up, they don't need to be big things but I wouldn't mind if like in the case of species with natural magical power that they might get a 3rd level spell at 10 and a 4th level spell at level 17. But I guess that is a part of a larger discussion on species in general.
I think the cow is out of the barn in terms of DnD in general having beast-folk species. I am not a huge fan in general either of their presence in my games. I do not have truly wide ranging experience with different groups, but I suspect that they are too popular to be excluded entirely. Furthermore, I'd argue that if there will be tabaxi, lizardfolk, tortles, harengon, etc. anyways to some extent, it is worthwhile to include a (separate) template-style generic beast species that can satisfy all those whose desired anthropomorphic animal happens not to be a cat, iguana, turtle, or bunny rabbit, etc.
On the celestial front, at first I didn't really see the attraction of a beast-headed playable character from the upper planes at all. However, I have been convinced by folks arguments in favor of the original UA Ardling species that a specifically non-western version of a celestial is missing and they will not be satisfied with just re-flavoring Aasimar. I don't necessarily agree that this celestial-focused version of the Ardling deserves a place in the Players Handbook instead of a supplement, but I am certainly willing to accept it if I find myself in the minority on this stance.
But the fact is that there is no way to fit all of the different beast folk that exist in 5e into the Players Handbook. In fact, even with supplements, there is no way to satisfy everyone's desires for the variety of anthropomorphic animal characters. A generalized beast-folk option in the Players Handbook would at least give people a chance to craft something that resembles the concept they have. While the ideas that have been published in the UA or discussed here may certainly not be completely satisfactory for this effort they allow players to build towards what they want.
I'm not opposed to the existence of a generic beastfolk race. I am opposed to replacing Tabaxi, Lizardfolk, tortles, etc. with a generic option and then never printing the long standing beastfolk species again, which seems to be what the OP wants.
The generic option needs to be separate from the dedicated options. A lizard beastfolk should be different visually, mechanically, and culturally from a Lizardfolk so that the Lizardfolk maintains its unique identity in the world.
This is in Wizards' benefit too. They do make money pumping out books with new dedicated species pages. Taking any and all future dedicated beastfolk off the table would be bad for business as well as disappoint anyone who's still hoping for a magical kitsune species or a true dog person. There's more to the roleplay flavor of these concepts than JUST being anthro animals. There's lots of cultural nuance from mythology that can go into it to make something truly unique from existing options. Just look at Lizardfolk and their incredibly unique psychology and outlook on the world. That would be lost of they were just a tiny paragraph explaining that lizard based beastfolk get a tail and bite attack.
But the fact is that there is no way to fit all of the different beast folk that exist in 5e into the Players Handbook. In fact, even with supplements, there is no way to satisfy everyone's desires for the variety of anthropomorphic animal characters. A generalized beast-folk option in the Players Handbook would at least give people a chance to craft something that resembles the concept they have. While the ideas that have been published in the UA or discussed here may certainly not be completely satisfactory for this effort they allow players to build towards what they want.
I'm not opposed to the existence of a generic beastfolk race. I am opposed to replacing Tabaxi, Lizardfolk, tortles, etc. with a generic option and then never printing the long standing beastfolk species again, which seems to be what the OP wants.
The generic option needs to be separate from the dedicated options. A lizard beastfolk should be different visually, mechanically, and culturally from a Lizardfolk so that the Lizardfolk maintains its unique identity in the world.
This is in Wizards' benefit too. They do make money pumping out books with new dedicated species pages. Taking any and all future dedicated beastfolk off the table would be bad for business as well as disappoint anyone who's still hoping for a magical kitsune species or a true dog person. There's more to the roleplay flavor of these concepts than JUST being anthro animals. There's lots of cultural nuance from mythology that can go into it to make something truly unique from existing options. Just look at Lizardfolk and their incredibly unique psychology and outlook on the world. That would be lost of they were just a tiny paragraph explaining that lizard based beastfolk get a tail and bite attack.
I do not think there is anything to worry about with the dedicated beastfolk such as lizardfolk being included in the next version of DnD. As you have pointed out, they seem to be popular enough to be a reliable source of income for the publishers when offered in supplements. However, there is no way to fit them all into the Players Handbook, and so I do think it would be nice for a basic, adaptable (both in mechanics and lore) beastfolk species to be included.
Personally, while it seems that others (such as you, presumably) find the published lore quite important, I prefer to have more freedom in deciding about the culture of my characters and how they might think. I tend to take a quick glance at any provided lore, and that may spark an idea in me, but it usually does not go farther than that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, in latest UA JC said that community mostly expressed interest in beast part of ardling rather than their celestial heritage, rightfully noting that aasimar already occupy the niche of celestial kin. The new ardlings have options that aer more in line with beasts, offering different forms of movement.
What would you sayy if I suggest that this idea went one step further to its logical conclusion - that ardlings fully became a catch-all beastfolk species (perhaps even renamed into "beastfolk") with ties to Feywild. In order to refpresent the multitude of beast forms, the species would be composed of several features - aspects - with options within each of them:
That way, a single species could substitute for all the beast options that bred without stop in all the possible supplements. Want an eagle person - pick flying, keen hearing and sight, and claws. Want a fox person - prowling, keen smell, bite. Squirrel Girl? Climbing, low light vision, claws. Rocksteady? Dashing, keen smell, thick hide. Kid Venison? Dashing, keen hearing and sight, horns. It's but a rough draft, of course. I'm thinking of a fourth feature, something about feral instincts like pack tactics (though not as powerful as monster variant) or ambusher.
How do you like the idea of ardlings becoming the catch-all beastfolk for PHB?
Needs to be a neither option for the poll.
They compete with the already existing aasimar for a place as the tiefling opposite. While also trying to be a build a bear catchall beastfolk race, despite tons of those already being in game and doing the job better and in a more interesting manner.
Make aardlings into an aasimar subrace, representing a connection to archons and guardinals.
Well, I don't like beast folk, so I'm really happy to just give them one slot in the book:)
This is what I would like to see done with both of the Ardling versions we've been given:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/unearthed-arcana/158508-fixing-the-ardling
So here are my qualms with removing the Ardling's celestial ties in order to turn them into a generic catch-all Beastfolk:
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Hard pass on "one definitive Beastfolk" if that means not printing rules for individual animal person races like Tabaxi and Lizardfolk. Some of these beast races are as iconic to DnD as any of the billion elf variants we have.
If Ardlings are made a Beastfolk race they need their own unique lore that is separate in a meaningful way from the existing animal races. A lizard Ardling should be visually, culturally, and mechanically distinct from a Lizardfolk in the lore of the world so as not to be a replacement for a dedicated Lizardfolk option.
As written currently the Ardlings have that already. A lizard Ardling would have a lizard's head sitting on a scaled human body with no tail and would have sharp claws for climbing. Very different from the fully bipedal lizard person with a deadly bite attack, armor-like scales, and a focus on swimming that the Lizardfolk represents. That clear visual and mechanical distinction should remain. If you let Ardlings be indistinguishable from existing Lizardfolk it diminishes what makes Lizardfolk special in the worlds they exist in.
And if the intent is to make Ardlings a way to custom make any existing beast person race then... Why stop at the beast folk? Just add a list of traits with appropriate point costs and let players design their own race wholesale.
So the poll, thus far tells me 2 things.
1. 50% of People really want a generic beast person option, for good or for ilk. I am hoping everyone who is saying they want one realizes even if we do, we are still gonna get specific beast people options and things like lizard folk and tabaxi aren't going anywhere.
And
2. Those same 50% either do not know, or do not care what the NAME Ardling naturally evokes. First part the ling suffix like in Tiefling and glitchling heavily suggests the creature originated in the outer planes, just like the aforementioned species. And the Ard envokes the gARDidnals which are a beastial upper plane good celestial. So the Ardling name basically says celestial beast person. If it isnt going to be that, you should change the name.
As part of the 50 percent you are addressing, yes I do understand that there will still be other specific beast people options and think that is good. However, it would be impossible to create a different beast person to satisfy everyone, so I think having a general template species would be useful. I tend not to be interested in playing these kinds of characters, but I believe a lot of others are. As to point 2, the name can easily be changed.
I also have nothing against a second non-western style celestial species, but I personally don't think it is as needed as a catch-all beast person option. Of course, there will also be a limit on how many choices can be offered in the new players handbook and I'm not certain either is important enough to really warrant inclusion. At the same time, I am willing to admit that my preferences for what will be warranted may not necessarily reflect popular opinion.
Well you kind of conceded to my point with the name change thing. I am cool with a generic beast person or a flexible fey/primal beast person for people to play with. That is great, but it is specifically NOT an Ardling.
And that is the question. Do you want ARDLING to be a general beast person? Not "do you want a generic beast person?". The name matters.
But how different are Iranians from Germans, and Kenyans from Chinese? These different people have not only cultural, but even clearly recognizable physiological differences... and yet, we're all one species. We all have the same origin. And this is the sort of the idea of beastfolk: while they may have starkly different appearance, cultures, history, and way of thinking, the fact that they would all share the same roots, is... heartwarming, I guess. One of the reasons I like this idea.
No. This is the very definition of homogenization and removal of unique flavor from the game. It's also very untrue to the settings of DnD where each individual species was created separately by separate gods. They are no more related than they are to elves, dwarves, or dragonborn and pushing them all under a single umbrella is a massive disservice to their unique cultures, biologies, and racial fantasy.
All I'm seeing is people trying to throw out my favorite race options and replace it with a generic build-a-bear mechanic because animal people are somehow a lesser fantasy than humans with long lives and pointy ears or short bearded humans. If Halflings can be a totally unique, separate race from gnomes or humans then Lizardfolk deserve to have a totally unique spot in the book from Tabaxi.
But the fact is that there is no way to fit all of the different beast folk that exist in 5e into the Players Handbook. In fact, even with supplements, there is no way to satisfy everyone's desires for the variety of anthropomorphic animal characters. A generalized beast-folk option in the Players Handbook would at least give people a chance to craft something that resembles the concept they have. While the ideas that have been published in the UA or discussed here may certainly not be completely satisfactory for this effort they allow players to build towards what they want. Extra "powers" that someone's fantasy beast/person hybrid might have could be represented by choosing the proper first level feat. Lore is what a backstory is for in this case, as it is ridiculous to expect the publishers to be able to take into account lore from every single human culture when creating species. With all this being said, I would certainly expect that specific beast-folk species, particularly ones that have a history as characters in previous editions of DnD, will certainly be fleshed out and offered in supplements.
A similar issue arises with the issue of celestials and other higher-planes character species. It is impossible to build enough to encompass the diversity of human cultures and historic beliefs. I believe that the designers are hoping to create species that can satisfy the widest range of fantasies possible. However, due to the history of the game as well as the fact that it is being created in a US culture that, while one of the most diverse on Earth, is still dominated by European traditions, these traditions will still land up being most prominent.
I like D&D and I like Anime, but I'm not keen on D&D basing itself too much on Anime and the whole beast-races/species/folk/kin direction feels way too generic anime fantasy & isekai for me.
I personally liked Aardlings being these Egyptian god-like race of celestial. Giving Aardlings a link to their bestial heritage isn't a terrible idea but they still, in my opinion, need a strong connection to being celestial still. I don't think they needed to lose their 1st and 2nd level divine spells, tho I do like the ability to switch the cantrip on a long rest for another divine cantrip.
Personally I like this idea of your heritage/species giving you more as you level-up, they don't need to be big things but I wouldn't mind if like in the case of species with natural magical power that they might get a 3rd level spell at 10 and a 4th level spell at level 17. But I guess that is a part of a larger discussion on species in general.
I think the cow is out of the barn in terms of DnD in general having beast-folk species. I am not a huge fan in general either of their presence in my games. I do not have truly wide ranging experience with different groups, but I suspect that they are too popular to be excluded entirely. Furthermore, I'd argue that if there will be tabaxi, lizardfolk, tortles, harengon, etc. anyways to some extent, it is worthwhile to include a (separate) template-style generic beast species that can satisfy all those whose desired anthropomorphic animal happens not to be a cat, iguana, turtle, or bunny rabbit, etc.
On the celestial front, at first I didn't really see the attraction of a beast-headed playable character from the upper planes at all. However, I have been convinced by folks arguments in favor of the original UA Ardling species that a specifically non-western version of a celestial is missing and they will not be satisfied with just re-flavoring Aasimar. I don't necessarily agree that this celestial-focused version of the Ardling deserves a place in the Players Handbook instead of a supplement, but I am certainly willing to accept it if I find myself in the minority on this stance.
I'm not opposed to the existence of a generic beastfolk race. I am opposed to replacing Tabaxi, Lizardfolk, tortles, etc. with a generic option and then never printing the long standing beastfolk species again, which seems to be what the OP wants.
The generic option needs to be separate from the dedicated options. A lizard beastfolk should be different visually, mechanically, and culturally from a Lizardfolk so that the Lizardfolk maintains its unique identity in the world.
This is in Wizards' benefit too. They do make money pumping out books with new dedicated species pages. Taking any and all future dedicated beastfolk off the table would be bad for business as well as disappoint anyone who's still hoping for a magical kitsune species or a true dog person. There's more to the roleplay flavor of these concepts than JUST being anthro animals. There's lots of cultural nuance from mythology that can go into it to make something truly unique from existing options. Just look at Lizardfolk and their incredibly unique psychology and outlook on the world. That would be lost of they were just a tiny paragraph explaining that lizard based beastfolk get a tail and bite attack.
I do not think there is anything to worry about with the dedicated beastfolk such as lizardfolk being included in the next version of DnD. As you have pointed out, they seem to be popular enough to be a reliable source of income for the publishers when offered in supplements. However, there is no way to fit them all into the Players Handbook, and so I do think it would be nice for a basic, adaptable (both in mechanics and lore) beastfolk species to be included.
Personally, while it seems that others (such as you, presumably) find the published lore quite important, I prefer to have more freedom in deciding about the culture of my characters and how they might think. I tend to take a quick glance at any provided lore, and that may spark an idea in me, but it usually does not go farther than that.