I was more interested in them when their celestial connection was more present, to be honest. Dragonborn or Lizardfolk are just much more thematic if I want to play a reptile person, and if I want a mostly human looking reptile person there's the Yuan-ti. The flying option makes for a very poor bird person experience as you have these majestic wings that are pretty much just for show. Aarocokra is better for feeling like a bird person and kenku has more flavor if you want to be a ground-bound bird person. The unique thing Ardlings bring to the table is the divine animal concept, but with just a single cantrip to represent that it feels like it may as well not even be a part of their kit.
As is I don't really see why I'd want to play an Ardling with the character preferences I have.
I don't want to play one, but I don't think I'm in the target demo for this one. I didn't want to play it before, either. And I suspect this version is more appealing to the people it's for -- because you actually get a taste of animal traits now.
I can't say this with 100% certainty, but I get the feeling WOTC is trying to move away from FR as the "default" setting. From what I can understand, most people prefer to use their own homebrew world, and WOTC seems like they're trying to capitalize on that.
EDIT: That's neither really here nor there I suppose, but for me personally FR so so far from my list of priorities I don't even think about it unless it's explicitly brought up.
Yes, well, D&D never really had an official default setting. In AD&D (1e and 2e), for example, the core manuals tried to be "agnostic". However, it smelt for miles the whiff of Greyhawk. AD&D was designed with Greyhawk in mind. And that was the default setting, even though it didn't officially have any.
5e also claims to be "agnostic", but is designed with FR in mind. And One D&D also seems to be going down that path.
I could play many races/species but I can't say Ardling are high up on the list of races I am yet to play as and would like too, I think they need more development before that point since right now... their lore is still very up in the air. However comparing Ardling from the 1st UA to the current UA. I think I actually prefer the 1st UA. I don't mind them having some link to their bestial heritage but at the same point I think they still need a strong link to their celestial heritage and that feels quiet weak in the latest UA, I'm not fond of generic races/species in general and one of the reasons I am not too fond of Aasimar either, the lore is very weak around Aasimar.
Maybe Wizards can put more deep lore behind Ardling, I think it is needed to introduce them.
I think, reading the lore on new Ardling is much better focused and less generic, it is just the mechanics that are missing. My opinion of course.
when I said the lore is up in the air, I was probably being a bit too unclear, I meant that the lore is open to change during the UA period so them just being pure UA is part of it why I currently not really able to get invested since I usually like to develop several paragraphs of backstory taking things like lore into consideration.
My answer would be a "maybe" and not a strict yes or no. Generally, no, because I like playing other stuff, but if the campaign world and campaign flavor has a strong enough incentive to make them fitting, I might consider it.
I was more interested in them when their celestial connection was more present, to be honest. Dragonborn or Lizardfolk are just much more thematic if I want to play a reptile person, and if I want a mostly human looking reptile person there's the Yuan-ti. The flying option makes for a very poor bird person experience as you have these majestic wings that are pretty much just for show. Aarocokra is better for feeling like a bird person and kenku has more flavor if you want to be a ground-bound bird person. The unique thing Ardlings bring to the table is the divine animal concept, but with just a single cantrip to represent that it feels like it may as well not even be a part of their kit.
As is I don't really see why I'd want to play an Ardling with the character preferences I have.
I don't want to play one, but I don't think I'm in the target demo for this one. I didn't want to play it before, either. And I suspect this version is more appealing to the people it's for -- because you actually get a taste of animal traits now.
Yes, well, D&D never really had an official default setting. In AD&D (1e and 2e), for example, the core manuals tried to be "agnostic". However, it smelt for miles the whiff of Greyhawk. AD&D was designed with Greyhawk in mind. And that was the default setting, even though it didn't officially have any.
5e also claims to be "agnostic", but is designed with FR in mind. And One D&D also seems to be going down that path.
when I said the lore is up in the air, I was probably being a bit too unclear, I meant that the lore is open to change during the UA period so them just being pure UA is part of it why I currently not really able to get invested since I usually like to develop several paragraphs of backstory taking things like lore into consideration.
Not a lot of participation in this poll, but I am not really surprised since it is in the UA section.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
My answer would be a "maybe" and not a strict yes or no. Generally, no, because I like playing other stuff, but if the campaign world and campaign flavor has a strong enough incentive to make them fitting, I might consider it.
+1 to the triceratops team. I really like this version of Ardling.
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.I unexpectedly find myself seconding this motion.