You have just proven my point. They won't care that Kitsune, Tanuki, Kappa, Tengu or Jorogumo are NOT beast folk at all. You can't make any of those using the rules present in the UA. Each and every one has a distinct lore from a real world culture. No, not everyone will get the options they want published, but trying to diminish them into a "Generic Beast Species" is not the right way to go. It certainly would not be culturally sensitive.
My point was that Kitsune aren't fox people, and Kappa aren't Tortles. So what is the game to do? Make the Tortle for people who want a beastfolk, and a Kappa for people who want a turtle-person specific to that myth, and an Ardling to represent a Guardinal of Kurma, one for Set, and one for Xuanwu? And what if the player wants to really play an aquatic turtle, and not a tortoise as the Tortle is closer to?
Do they make one general anthropomorphic fox person, and then the Kitsune, and another fox shapeshifter for every earth culture that has one, and a were-fox, and a fox Guardinal to cover fox gods?
Do they make Bullywugs, and Grung, and a different generic frog person? And also an Ardling for Guardinals of Heqet, and Tlaltecuhti? And were-frogs, and fey frogs, and frog Oni?
It would be absolutely wonderful if there was a thousand page book devoted only to species options to play all of these and more. Ones that really captures the myths. And ones that are blank slates for people that want to write their own stories. Anthropomorphic species already have the greatest share of options in DnD, and a large part of the players don't want any of them, while the other group can't get enough.
But the new PHB will be lucky to get one single animal themed species. You could pick one at random like the Tabaxi. Some people will like it. But others will wish they picked the Loxodon instead. Or the Tortle, or the Kenku, or the Centaur, or the Satyr, and on and on. And some people who even wanted a cat person won't like the Tabaxi because they really wanted one tied to a myth.
'Generic,' or broader options with more breathing room for creativity, give more people a chance to play what they want. Ardlings let people play any animal themed myth that's also tied to a divine power. A Fey species like the Wyldborn I offered lets people play anything from an anime catboy, to a relative of any number of animal Trickster creatures from myth, to fairies like Pooka, and just regular anthropomorphic characters that want the animal traits with no strings attached. Neither the Ardling nor the Wyldborn would remove all the other animal species from the game. They have their own distinct role. WotC could still make a thousand more different narrow options.
But what the Ardling and Wydlborn would do is let new players have some chance of making a character they want with an animal theme. And they WOULD allow hundreds of options listed above that never had a chance before. With just two entries. You could make a Kappa themed Swimmer Wyldborn that smells like fish and loves cucumbers and has a bowl of water in their head and has water magic (and hopefully doesn't do all the awful things Kappa do.) They could make a cat person that is reminiscent of Bastet, and not just another Tabaxi. Or they could just finally make a dog guy. And all of those options will only exist if there is a 'generic,' or broader animal option in the PHB.
Here is a question then. Do YOU want to play a generic beast person? I read of lot of talk about what other people might want, but none of us can speak to what they may or may not want. What do YOU as a player want?
Do you want play the Ardling as presented in this UA?
Here is a question then. Do YOU want to play a generic beast person? I read of lot of talk about what other people might want, but none of us can speak to what they may or may not want. What do YOU as a player want?
Do you want play the Ardling as presented in this UA?
'Do you want to play a generic beast person,' and 'do you want to play the Ardling as presented in this UA' are two different questions. I think my personal answer is obvious. I made this thread to fix what I thought was lacking in the different Ardlings we've seen. So no, I don't want to play the Ardling exactly as it was presented. But yes, I do like the ideas in general. Both of them.
I don't think 'generic' is the best term anyway. 'Flexible' maybe, or 'broader,' or 'more open to creativity.' I don't personally like that the only bestfolk options currently n 5e are all hyper specific. But I do love the Fey, and I think the Feywild is a great natural match for interesting beasts, so I wrote a version of a more flexible beastfolk that incorporated the Feywild to make them distinct from other current options.
I also like the idea of the outer planes being represented with a different flavor than the typical Western 'angels.' I just think there are so many cool creatures in those planes, that broadening the scope for character appearance appeals to me. I'd love to play a Celestial based on a Treant or a Sphynx too. That's why I made that suggestion here.
So, yes, I would like to play both version of Ardlings we have been given, with some minor changes. I also recognize that we are only going to get one Beastfolk and/or Celestial option in the PHB, so it needs to be as flexible as possible. In fact, I would rather play my Wyldborn concept than any current narrow focus beastfolk already in the game. (But I wrote these changes so I guess that's no surprise. I suppose it would be better to say that I'd rather play the new Ardling than many of the current choices. And I'd rather have it in the PHB than even 10 narrow focus species, because it gives more freedom to my players.)
Here is a question then. Do YOU want to play a generic beast person? I read of lot of talk about what other people might want, but none of us can speak to what they may or may not want. What do YOU as a player want?
Do you want play the Ardling as presented in this UA?
Re: beast person, yes and I have (I've played almost all of the beast races: Tabaxi x2, Shifter x2, Harengon, Lizardfolk, Triton, Firbolg, Satyr). We already have a generic beast person in the form of the Shifter in Eberron. They are quite good and fun to play. However they either lore and mechanics are more were-animal themed which might not be to everyone's taste. A Fey-themed generic beast option in the PHB would be welcome from me as long as they had sufficient differentiation between 'versions' - I'd prefer something more like the shifter with flexible skills and physical characteristics. Something like:
1) Gain proficiency in one skill of your choice from: Perception, Survival, Acrobatics, Athletics, Stealth 2) Natural weapons 3) Movement Style: Flier - bonus to jumping, ability to reduce fall damage. Swimmer - breath underwater, natural armour (13+Dex) Climber - climb speed, bonus to avoid falling prone Terrestrial - bonus to movement speed, bonus to initiative 4) (optional) Druidcraft + Speak with Animals as a ritual + Charm Person
A kitsune is distinct enough from a “person but fox head” to make it worth a separate race slot, but “person with fox head” isn’t distinct enough from “person but finch head” for the same.
Well considering JC and the people of wizards have already stated they aren't slashing species AND it wouldn't make any sense for them to NOT print more species because that is more money your statement makes no sense. Also the fact that you think Kitsune are obscure is hilarious. They cut down subraces sure, but MoTM is already out, the setting books are already coming out with new species. They are even trying to put MORE species in the PHB. They are not going to slash a single beast person, nor are they going to stop making them just because they make a generic one they have already stated this is the case. If you think Giants are going to be in PHB because they have stated they will put them there, and you believe the new dragonborn doesn't prevent the use of or get rid of Fizban's dragonborn because JC said so, then you have to believe and understand that one generic beast race can not, will not and will never be intended to slash the other. You are wasting yours and everyone else's time with a bad dream.
I give Kitsune 5 years, though they may not be called kitsune. Tanuki's are obscure enough with problematic enough lore they won't touch them.
Of course they won't slash a single beast person. Meanwhile, look at the list of beastfolk races in 3.5e and how many of them slipped into oblivion. An attempt to please all the beastfolk lovers has been made, but they simply forgot it ever happened and they're asking for the same again... only for it to be forgotten and quietly drift into obscurity again.
New flavor text (Leave all of the mechanics the same as they were in the first UA.) -
Ardlings are supernal beings who are either born on the Upper Planes or have one or more ancestors who originated there. Their bright souls shine with the light of immortal beings who call the Upper Planes home.
Ardlings vary greatly in physical appearance, resembling the diverse native beings of the Upper Planes - the animal headed Guardinals of Elysium, the Ki-Rin of Mount Celestia, the Sphinxes of Arborea, the Foo Creatures of the Beastlands, the Treants of Bytopia, and Arcadia's wonderous animals with metallic feathers and fur.
An Ardling might have vibrant colored skin, ornate feathers in place of hair, a single pearl horn in the center of their forehead, a thick golden mane, soft fur with glowing patterns, gnarled bark-like growths, fine shimmering scales, or even the head of an animal associated with a divine power. Each Ardling is an individual, and the expression of their immortal souls in their outward appearance is as varied as they are.
Use all of the mechanics from the 1st UA Ardling - Angelic Flight, Divine spells from the Celestial Legacy of choice, and Radiant Damage resistance.
Wyldborn
Wherever the boundaries between the Material Plane and the Feywild are the thinnest, rare children are sometimes born. They share the traits of the magical creatures that roam the Fey and the local peoples of the world on the other side of the veil. Gifted with a spark of creativity and wonder, they often set off to see the whole scope of creation, and place their mark on it.
Wyldborn come in all shapes and sizes. They share the general humanoid form of the Material Plane people they grow up near, with the beastial traits of the mysterious fauna of the Feywild. Some appear almost Human, with a few unmistakably Fey marks such as velvet ears, whiskers, dappled skin, swishing tail, branching antlers, or sharp teeth. Others appear like fully bipedal animals, but with unusual fur colors and patterns, striking intelligent eyes, or the faint glow of fairy fireflies drifting around them.
Wyldborn commonly find themselves overcome with wanderlust, eager to adventure and experience the new places that their hearts tell them are just over the next hill. Their exceptional physical skills make them perfect explorers. And their natural charms help them fit in wherever they go.
Use the 2nd UA version of Ardling's mechanics with the following updates:
Animal Ancestry - keep the same choices from the 2nd version (Climber, Flyer, Racer, Swimmer)
Keen Senses - keep the same from the 2nd version - proficiency in Perception
Add 'Creative Spark' - You have proficiency in the Performance skill
Remove Divine Magic from the 2nd version and add 'Fey Magic' - You know the Druidcraft cantrip, and can exchange it for any other Primal cantrip after Long Rest. You know the Charm Person spell, and can cast it at first level once per Long Rest, or with any spell slots you have.
for me your version of the celestial Ardling is practically the same as the existing Aasimar but with similar legacy Aasimars spell levels added back in and some permanent flight from the first UA Ardling, so i don't think it warrants inclusion as a separate species in the PHB.
Aasimar should be in the PHB. I would not add the permanent flight (available from revelation as a 1 minute ability) but the additional flavour could be easily added into Aasimar to allow for the animal aspects of the Ardling, add back in the legacy spells and include the options of the ardling spells and I would also add in a new celestial revelation option manifesting for 1 minute per day as two additional spectral arms that;
1: give off a regenerative aura - at the end of each of your turns, each creature of your choice within 10 ft. of you regains hit points equal to your proficiency bonus
2: as a bonus action - Lift, drop, hold, push, or pull an object or a creature; open or close a door or a container; grapple someone; or make an unarmed strike which deals 1d4 + ability score modifier (your choice) force damage
I don't think the species should be able to swap out their divine or primal magics at long rests (leave this to class) instead i would give the Wyldborn Primal Savagery and no other spells
New flavor text (Leave all of the mechanics the same as they were in the first UA.) -
Ardlings are supernal beings who are either born on the Upper Planes or have one or more ancestors who originated there. Their bright souls shine with the light of immortal beings who call the Upper Planes home.
Ardlings vary greatly in physical appearance, resembling the diverse native beings of the Upper Planes - the animal headed Guardinals of Elysium, the Ki-Rin of Mount Celestia, the Sphinxes of Arborea, the Foo Creatures of the Beastlands, the Treants of Bytopia, and Arcadia's wonderous animals with metallic feathers and fur.
An Ardling might have vibrant colored skin, ornate feathers in place of hair, a single pearl horn in the center of their forehead, a thick golden mane, soft fur with glowing patterns, gnarled bark-like growths, fine shimmering scales, or even the head of an animal associated with a divine power. Each Ardling is an individual, and the expression of their immortal souls in their outward appearance is as varied as they are.
Use all of the mechanics from the 1st UA Ardling - Angelic Flight, Divine spells from the Celestial Legacy of choice, and Radiant Damage resistance.
Wyldborn
Wherever the boundaries between the Material Plane and the Feywild are the thinnest, rare children are sometimes born. They share the traits of the magical creatures that roam the Fey and the local peoples of the world on the other side of the veil. Gifted with a spark of creativity and wonder, they often set off to see the whole scope of creation, and place their mark on it.
Wyldborn come in all shapes and sizes. They share the general humanoid form of the Material Plane people they grow up near, with the beastial traits of the mysterious fauna of the Feywild. Some appear almost Human, with a few unmistakably Fey marks such as velvet ears, whiskers, dappled skin, swishing tail, branching antlers, or sharp teeth. Others appear like fully bipedal animals, but with unusual fur colors and patterns, striking intelligent eyes, or the faint glow of fairy fireflies drifting around them.
Wyldborn commonly find themselves overcome with wanderlust, eager to adventure and experience the new places that their hearts tell them are just over the next hill. Their exceptional physical skills make them perfect explorers. And their natural charms help them fit in wherever they go.
Use the 2nd UA version of Ardling's mechanics with the following updates:
Animal Ancestry - keep the same choices from the 2nd version (Climber, Flyer, Racer, Swimmer)
Keen Senses - keep the same from the 2nd version - proficiency in Perception
Add 'Creative Spark' - You have proficiency in the Performance skill
Remove Divine Magic from the 2nd version and add 'Fey Magic' - You know the Druidcraft cantrip, and can exchange it for any other Primal cantrip after Long Rest. You know the Charm Person spell, and can cast it at first level once per Long Rest, or with any spell slots you have.
for me your version of the celestial Ardling is practically the same as the existing Aasimar but with similar legacy Aasimars spell levels added back in and some permanent flight from the first UA Ardling, so i don't think it warrants inclusion as a separate species in the PHB.
Aasimar should be in the PHB. I would not add the permanent flight (available from revelation as a 1 minute ability) but the additional flavour could be easily added into Aasimar to allow for the animal aspects of the Ardling, add back in the legacy spells and include the options of the ardling spells and I would also add in a new celestial revelation option manifesting for 1 minute per day as two additional spectral arms that;
1: give off a regenerative aura - at the end of each of your turns, each creature of your choice within 10 ft. of you regains hit points equal to your proficiency bonus
2: as a bonus action - Lift, drop, hold, push, or pull an object or a creature; open or close a door or a container; grapple someone; or make an unarmed strike which deals 1d4 + ability score modifier (your choice) force damage
I don't think the species should be able to swap out their divine or primal magics at long rests (leave this to class) instead i would give the Wyldborn Primal Savagery and no other spells
Do you mean that Ardling is similar to the Aasimar mechanically? Because it is nothing like it in theme or aesthetics at all.
To clarify, my original post was only meant to make better lore to allow both versions of the Ardling they presented to exist. Fluff to appeal to more people, at least as I understood the problem at the time. We've talked about it a lot more since then and I would probably suggest something more involved at this point.
I wasn't attempting to fix the mechanics so much. If anyone doesn't like the mechanics, that's something for the survey. Since they are basically just what the UAs gave us.
Everyone seems to want something very different from the Ardling. I only wish I knew why WotC wanted them in the first place. It clearly wasn't the mechanics. They changed that easily enough. If we only knew what purpose they wanted it to serve, we could probably compromise better
for me your version of the celestial Ardling is practically the same as the existing Aasimar but with similar legacy Aasimars spell levels added back in and some permanent flight from the first UA Ardling, so i don't think it warrants inclusion as a separate species in the PHB.
Aasimar should be in the PHB. I would not add the permanent flight (available from revelation as a 1 minute ability) but the additional flavour could be easily added into Aasimar to allow for the animal aspects of the Ardling, add back in the legacy spells and include the options of the ardling spells and I would also add in a new celestial revelation option manifesting for 1 minute per day as two additional spectral arms that;
1: give off a regenerative aura - at the end of each of your turns, each creature of your choice within 10 ft. of you regains hit points equal to your proficiency bonus
2: as a bonus action - Lift, drop, hold, push, or pull an object or a creature; open or close a door or a container; grapple someone; or make an unarmed strike which deals 1d4 + ability score modifier (your choice) force damage
I find it interesting that you want to continue the tradition of aasimar only getting to do something aasimar-y for 1 minute in the entire adventuring day. For one singular encounter in the adventuring day, you get to really feel like you're playing a celestial-themed species instead of a human with Magic Initiate (Divine) built in and two relatively situational damage resistances.
So having extra divine spells or even situational resistances doesn't count as feeling more 'celestial'? Just about any species could be dismissed in this way. Dragonborn aren't dragon's, so they can't spit fire all day long, Genasi aren't elementals, so they don't get all of their abilities on call all the time, tieflings don't get unlimited uses of infernal abilities, and Aasimar aren't full angels so they can only manifest certain celestial traits to a limited extent. Otherwise species like these would essentially have a full monster stat block in addition to character levels. Some restraint is necessary in doling out their abilities.
Species features are and should be just a background bonus to class abilities and progression, at least while DnD remains primarily about humanoid creatures going on adventures. I have played games where characters can be full-blown monsters, and they can be fun, but I don't think DnD is equipped to go in that direction.
This concept for the Wyldborn reminds me a lot of stuff like the updated Beastmaster Ranger or the new Summon Spells in comparison to the older version of Beastmaster and the Conjure Spells... The older version required you to actually dig into the Monster Manual and find an existing creature. So if you really want a specific pet you either have to hope that it's already statted in the game (and that it has actually good stats), or you have to find the closest approximate creature and hope that your DM will let you reflavor it to be the animal you actually want.
Meanwhile, with the newer Version you basically get a few simple archetypes, and then it's up to you to decide what they actually look like and which set of skills they have access to. This helps to make sure that your pet is balanced and mechanically useful, while still with enough customization to have it be whatever you want. I can understand if someone prefers the older versions for one reason or another (although I doubt there are many people clamoring for the classic Beastmaster), but the way it simplifies things really helps to save a lot of headaches for people.
I wouldn't complain if One DnD has just one flexible "beastfolk" race actually published, and if the existing beastfolk are simply included as legacy content from 5e. I'm not against the idea of eventually releasing updated versions of certain beastfolk, but I think tying them to the Feywild feels grounded enough to make them feel approachable. Making them inherently celestial definitely feels like it adds a weird weight to them that I wouldn't want to have to tackle in my backtstory for a PC.
So far our gaming group has had a Rogue Racer and a Monk Climber. Both players said that the Ardling felt bland and flat compared to the other species they have played over the years. The basic consensus was the they were too mechanically uninteresting to play and failed to provide meaningful or flavorful abilities.
Had one player that wanted to play an Ardling Druid, but decided against it because, and I quote, "In order to feel even remotely celestial, I have to take the Magic Initiate Feat. No other species has a Feat tax to feel like you are playing that species."
I think the revised Ardling will receive low marks from our gaming circle.
So far our gaming group has had a Rogue Racer and a Monk Climber. Both players said that the Ardling felt bland and flat compared to the other species they have played over the years. The basic consensus was the they were too mechanically uninteresting to play and failed to provide meaningful or flavorful abilities.
Had one player that wanted to play an Ardling Druid, but decided against it because, and I quote, "In order to feel even remotely celestial, I have to take the Magic Initiate Feat. No other species has a Feat tax to feel like you are playing that species."
I think the revised Ardling will receive low marks from our gaming circle.
I'm not surprised. I think the decision to focus the Ardling more on the beast aspect meant it would lose a good chunk of the celestial stuff you would expect from their celestial origins. At the same time, retaining their celestial nature also prevents them from going all-in with the beast aspects to give them truly unique features beyond some fairly basic movement or attack options. I think that's why like the idea of splitting Ardling into two different species... the two aspects don't actually play very well together.
So far our gaming group has had a Rogue Racer and a Monk Climber. Both players said that the Ardling felt bland and flat compared to the other species they have played over the years. The basic consensus was the they were too mechanically uninteresting to play and failed to provide meaningful or flavorful abilities.
Had one player that wanted to play an Ardling Druid, but decided against it because, and I quote, "In order to feel even remotely celestial, I have to take the Magic Initiate Feat. No other species has a Feat tax to feel like you are playing that species."
I think the revised Ardling will receive low marks from our gaming circle.
As expected. Movement mode is not a ribbon, but not a big deal as well. You just don't dash or glide all that often. Other from that, ardlings get a cantrip and one skill... It's painfully clear that it's underwhelming.
So far our gaming group has had a Rogue Racer and a Monk Climber. Both players said that the Ardling felt bland and flat compared to the other species they have played over the years. The basic consensus was the they were too mechanically uninteresting to play and failed to provide meaningful or flavorful abilities.
Had one player that wanted to play an Ardling Druid, but decided against it because, and I quote, "In order to feel even remotely celestial, I have to take the Magic Initiate Feat. No other species has a Feat tax to feel like you are playing that species."
I think the revised Ardling will receive low marks from our gaming circle.
As expected. Movement mode is not a ribbon, but not a big deal as well. You just don't dash or glide all that often. Other from that, ardlings get a cantrip and one skill... It's painfully clear that it's underwhelming.
A good way to see this is compare them to our current beast races: Ardling: Perception + Thaumaturgy + choose one: 1) Climb speed + pathetic bonus to unarmed strikes that no-one other than monks / unarmed fighters would ever use. 2) Slight bonus to jumping and effectively immunity to falling damage 3) 10x prof bonus extra speed when taking the Dash Action - practically useless to everyone other than monks and rogues 4) cold resistance + swim speed + hold breath
Lizardfolk: 2x skill proficiencies + swim speed + hold breath + Natural Armour (useful for any DEX focused character) + unarmed strikes are viable weapons + ptplr BA Bite (always useful for monks & STR focuses character) [ aka better version of (1) + (4) from Ardling]
Tabaxi: 2x skill proficiencies + climb speed + universally useful speed boost + Darkvision + minor bonus to unarmed strikes. [aka (1) + better version of (3) from Ardling]
Minotaur: unarmed strikes are viable weapons Dash gives a BA attack Always available BA shove
Shifter: 1x skill proficiency + always useful tmp hp BA + choose one: +1 AC (always good) BA attack (good for all STR characters) base speed increase + reaction escape (good for all ranged characters) Adv on Wis checks + advantage immunity (always good)
Tortle: 1x skill proficiency + Hold Breath + unarmed strikes are viable weapons + Natural Armour (good for all characters that don't use heavy armour)
Hadozee: Glide + climb speed + BA Use Object + universally useful dmg reduction
Harengon: 1x skill proficiency + proficiency in Initiative + BA speed increase & disengage + bonus to Dex saves
Basically, current Beast races get twice as much and better stuff than Ardling...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My point was that Kitsune aren't fox people, and Kappa aren't Tortles. So what is the game to do? Make the Tortle for people who want a beastfolk, and a Kappa for people who want a turtle-person specific to that myth, and an Ardling to represent a Guardinal of Kurma, one for Set, and one for Xuanwu? And what if the player wants to really play an aquatic turtle, and not a tortoise as the Tortle is closer to?
Do they make one general anthropomorphic fox person, and then the Kitsune, and another fox shapeshifter for every earth culture that has one, and a were-fox, and a fox Guardinal to cover fox gods?
Do they make Bullywugs, and Grung, and a different generic frog person? And also an Ardling for Guardinals of Heqet, and Tlaltecuhti? And were-frogs, and fey frogs, and frog Oni?
It would be absolutely wonderful if there was a thousand page book devoted only to species options to play all of these and more. Ones that really captures the myths. And ones that are blank slates for people that want to write their own stories. Anthropomorphic species already have the greatest share of options in DnD, and a large part of the players don't want any of them, while the other group can't get enough.
But the new PHB will be lucky to get one single animal themed species. You could pick one at random like the Tabaxi. Some people will like it. But others will wish they picked the Loxodon instead. Or the Tortle, or the Kenku, or the Centaur, or the Satyr, and on and on. And some people who even wanted a cat person won't like the Tabaxi because they really wanted one tied to a myth.
'Generic,' or broader options with more breathing room for creativity, give more people a chance to play what they want. Ardlings let people play any animal themed myth that's also tied to a divine power. A Fey species like the Wyldborn I offered lets people play anything from an anime catboy, to a relative of any number of animal Trickster creatures from myth, to fairies like Pooka, and just regular anthropomorphic characters that want the animal traits with no strings attached. Neither the Ardling nor the Wyldborn would remove all the other animal species from the game. They have their own distinct role. WotC could still make a thousand more different narrow options.
But what the Ardling and Wydlborn would do is let new players have some chance of making a character they want with an animal theme. And they WOULD allow hundreds of options listed above that never had a chance before. With just two entries. You could make a Kappa themed Swimmer Wyldborn that smells like fish and loves cucumbers and has a bowl of water in their head and has water magic (and hopefully doesn't do all the awful things Kappa do.) They could make a cat person that is reminiscent of Bastet, and not just another Tabaxi. Or they could just finally make a dog guy. And all of those options will only exist if there is a 'generic,' or broader animal option in the PHB.
Here is a question then. Do YOU want to play a generic beast person? I read of lot of talk about what other people might want, but none of us can speak to what they may or may not want. What do YOU as a player want?
Do you want play the Ardling as presented in this UA?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
'Do you want to play a generic beast person,' and 'do you want to play the Ardling as presented in this UA' are two different questions. I think my personal answer is obvious. I made this thread to fix what I thought was lacking in the different Ardlings we've seen. So no, I don't want to play the Ardling exactly as it was presented. But yes, I do like the ideas in general. Both of them.
I don't think 'generic' is the best term anyway. 'Flexible' maybe, or 'broader,' or 'more open to creativity.' I don't personally like that the only bestfolk options currently n 5e are all hyper specific. But I do love the Fey, and I think the Feywild is a great natural match for interesting beasts, so I wrote a version of a more flexible beastfolk that incorporated the Feywild to make them distinct from other current options.
I also like the idea of the outer planes being represented with a different flavor than the typical Western 'angels.' I just think there are so many cool creatures in those planes, that broadening the scope for character appearance appeals to me. I'd love to play a Celestial based on a Treant or a Sphynx too. That's why I made that suggestion here.
So, yes, I would like to play both version of Ardlings we have been given, with some minor changes. I also recognize that we are only going to get one Beastfolk and/or Celestial option in the PHB, so it needs to be as flexible as possible. In fact, I would rather play my Wyldborn concept than any current narrow focus beastfolk already in the game. (But I wrote these changes so I guess that's no surprise. I suppose it would be better to say that I'd rather play the new Ardling than many of the current choices. And I'd rather have it in the PHB than even 10 narrow focus species, because it gives more freedom to my players.)
Re: beast person, yes and I have (I've played almost all of the beast races: Tabaxi x2, Shifter x2, Harengon, Lizardfolk, Triton, Firbolg, Satyr). We already have a generic beast person in the form of the Shifter in Eberron. They are quite good and fun to play. However they either lore and mechanics are more were-animal themed which might not be to everyone's taste. A Fey-themed generic beast option in the PHB would be welcome from me as long as they had sufficient differentiation between 'versions' - I'd prefer something more like the shifter with flexible skills and physical characteristics. Something like:
1) Gain proficiency in one skill of your choice from: Perception, Survival, Acrobatics, Athletics, Stealth
2) Natural weapons
3) Movement Style:
Flier - bonus to jumping, ability to reduce fall damage.
Swimmer - breath underwater, natural armour (13+Dex)
Climber - climb speed, bonus to avoid falling prone
Terrestrial - bonus to movement speed, bonus to initiative
4) (optional) Druidcraft + Speak with Animals as a ritual + Charm Person
A kitsune is distinct enough from a “person but fox head” to make it worth a separate race slot, but “person with fox head” isn’t distinct enough from “person but finch head” for the same.
Of course they won't slash a single beast person. Meanwhile, look at the list of beastfolk races in 3.5e and how many of them slipped into oblivion. An attempt to please all the beastfolk lovers has been made, but they simply forgot it ever happened and they're asking for the same again... only for it to be forgotten and quietly drift into obscurity again.
for me your version of the celestial Ardling is practically the same as the existing Aasimar but with similar legacy Aasimars spell levels added back in and some permanent flight from the first UA Ardling, so i don't think it warrants inclusion as a separate species in the PHB.
Aasimar should be in the PHB. I would not add the permanent flight (available from revelation as a 1 minute ability) but the additional flavour could be easily added into Aasimar to allow for the animal aspects of the Ardling, add back in the legacy spells and include the options of the ardling spells and I would also add in a new celestial revelation option manifesting for 1 minute per day as two additional spectral arms that;
1: give off a regenerative aura - at the end of each of your turns, each creature of your choice within 10 ft. of you regains hit points equal to your proficiency bonus
2: as a bonus action - Lift, drop, hold, push, or pull an object or a creature; open or close a door or a container; grapple someone; or make an unarmed strike which deals 1d4 + ability score modifier (your choice) force damage
I don't think the species should be able to swap out their divine or primal magics at long rests (leave this to class) instead i would give the Wyldborn Primal Savagery and no other spells
Do you mean that Ardling is similar to the Aasimar mechanically? Because it is nothing like it in theme or aesthetics at all.
To clarify, my original post was only meant to make better lore to allow both versions of the Ardling they presented to exist. Fluff to appeal to more people, at least as I understood the problem at the time. We've talked about it a lot more since then and I would probably suggest something more involved at this point.
I wasn't attempting to fix the mechanics so much. If anyone doesn't like the mechanics, that's something for the survey. Since they are basically just what the UAs gave us.
Everyone seems to want something very different from the Ardling. I only wish I knew why WotC wanted them in the first place. It clearly wasn't the mechanics. They changed that easily enough. If we only knew what purpose they wanted it to serve, we could probably compromise better
So having extra divine spells or even situational resistances doesn't count as feeling more 'celestial'? Just about any species could be dismissed in this way. Dragonborn aren't dragon's, so they can't spit fire all day long, Genasi aren't elementals, so they don't get all of their abilities on call all the time, tieflings don't get unlimited uses of infernal abilities, and Aasimar aren't full angels so they can only manifest certain celestial traits to a limited extent. Otherwise species like these would essentially have a full monster stat block in addition to character levels. Some restraint is necessary in doling out their abilities.
Species features are and should be just a background bonus to class abilities and progression, at least while DnD remains primarily about humanoid creatures going on adventures. I have played games where characters can be full-blown monsters, and they can be fun, but I don't think DnD is equipped to go in that direction.
This concept for the Wyldborn reminds me a lot of stuff like the updated Beastmaster Ranger or the new Summon Spells in comparison to the older version of Beastmaster and the Conjure Spells... The older version required you to actually dig into the Monster Manual and find an existing creature. So if you really want a specific pet you either have to hope that it's already statted in the game (and that it has actually good stats), or you have to find the closest approximate creature and hope that your DM will let you reflavor it to be the animal you actually want.
Meanwhile, with the newer Version you basically get a few simple archetypes, and then it's up to you to decide what they actually look like and which set of skills they have access to. This helps to make sure that your pet is balanced and mechanically useful, while still with enough customization to have it be whatever you want. I can understand if someone prefers the older versions for one reason or another (although I doubt there are many people clamoring for the classic Beastmaster), but the way it simplifies things really helps to save a lot of headaches for people.
I wouldn't complain if One DnD has just one flexible "beastfolk" race actually published, and if the existing beastfolk are simply included as legacy content from 5e. I'm not against the idea of eventually releasing updated versions of certain beastfolk, but I think tying them to the Feywild feels grounded enough to make them feel approachable. Making them inherently celestial definitely feels like it adds a weird weight to them that I wouldn't want to have to tackle in my backtstory for a PC.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
So far our gaming group has had a Rogue Racer and a Monk Climber. Both players said that the Ardling felt bland and flat compared to the other species they have played over the years. The basic consensus was the they were too mechanically uninteresting to play and failed to provide meaningful or flavorful abilities.
Had one player that wanted to play an Ardling Druid, but decided against it because, and I quote, "In order to feel even remotely celestial, I have to take the Magic Initiate Feat. No other species has a Feat tax to feel like you are playing that species."
I think the revised Ardling will receive low marks from our gaming circle.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'm not surprised. I think the decision to focus the Ardling more on the beast aspect meant it would lose a good chunk of the celestial stuff you would expect from their celestial origins. At the same time, retaining their celestial nature also prevents them from going all-in with the beast aspects to give them truly unique features beyond some fairly basic movement or attack options. I think that's why like the idea of splitting Ardling into two different species... the two aspects don't actually play very well together.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
As expected. Movement mode is not a ribbon, but not a big deal as well. You just don't dash or glide all that often. Other from that, ardlings get a cantrip and one skill... It's painfully clear that it's underwhelming.
A good way to see this is compare them to our current beast races:
Ardling:
Perception + Thaumaturgy + choose one:
1) Climb speed + pathetic bonus to unarmed strikes that no-one other than monks / unarmed fighters would ever use.
2) Slight bonus to jumping and effectively immunity to falling damage
3) 10x prof bonus extra speed when taking the Dash Action - practically useless to everyone other than monks and rogues
4) cold resistance + swim speed + hold breath
Lizardfolk:
2x skill proficiencies + swim speed + hold breath
+ Natural Armour (useful for any DEX focused character)
+ unarmed strikes are viable weapons + ptplr BA Bite (always useful for monks & STR focuses character)
[ aka better version of (1) + (4) from Ardling]
Tabaxi:
2x skill proficiencies + climb speed + universally useful speed boost + Darkvision + minor bonus to unarmed strikes.
[aka (1) + better version of (3) from Ardling]
Minotaur:
unarmed strikes are viable weapons
Dash gives a BA attack
Always available BA shove
Shifter:
1x skill proficiency + always useful tmp hp BA + choose one:
+1 AC (always good)
BA attack (good for all STR characters)
base speed increase + reaction escape (good for all ranged characters)
Adv on Wis checks + advantage immunity (always good)
Tortle:
1x skill proficiency + Hold Breath + unarmed strikes are viable weapons + Natural Armour (good for all characters that don't use heavy armour)
Hadozee:
Glide + climb speed + BA Use Object + universally useful dmg reduction
Harengon:
1x skill proficiency + proficiency in Initiative + BA speed increase & disengage + bonus to Dex saves
Basically, current Beast races get twice as much and better stuff than Ardling...