Then take the Aasimar as written and alter Scourge to manifest the appearance of the deity or "Spirit Animal" during their ability. That way it doesn't alter the Aasimar too much. Then they won't deviate too much from standard Aasimar but can still fill that beastial niche.
Do you think this about all planetouched, or just aasimar? And if not, why single aasimar out for it?
All goodly planed ones. You mostly have three kinds of celestials. Angels and the higher archons (tome, sword, trumpet, etc); these generally have wings, and are often associated with celestial bodies such as sun, stars and planets. Beast types, which includes all guardinals, a few of the lower archons (notably hound and bear), and I believe there's some CG dolphins, unicorn, pegasi, couatl (and the half-couatl, half-elven lillend). Lastly, we have the eladrin, which are basically celestial fairies and elves that can turn into energy or elements.
The sun/moon/star/etc type of celestial is what we normally think of when we talk about aasimar. "Shiny humans." Which is a fair description, given their association with glowy sky objects and stereotypically christian appearance.
Eladrin, as I have said, are basically elves, and thanks to 4e and the first Mordy book, they're technically playable now, though more limited.
Beast types... lots of individual write ups, and I'd love a generic one in the core, but that's beside the point. Beast people are a thing all over in D&D.
All three types of celestials can be represented by existing races with some radiance resistance coupled with a watered down Magic Initiate (divine). Something akin to the Fey-touched feat, basically. It would also allow us to consider beings like celestial goliaths and celestial halflings, both of which supposedly have their gods residing on the Upper Planes as well. We could have guardinal-touched beast folk without needing to reinvent the entire wheel.
Actually, a question/ thought. DMG aasimar and Volo's had necrotic resistance. The ardlings never did. Only radiance.
Presumably it was dropped to make room for baby wings alongside the DMG spells on top of the odd similaity to cthonic tieflings.
How important do you all feel the necrotic resist is to the identity of an aasimar?
The section in the DMG literally says that they gave aasimar necrotic resistance because radiant damage isn't as common a damage type aimed at PCs.
I'm aware that's why the writers did it; coupled with the association with paladin/cleric class, it made them very good undead hunters. I'm more asking how people feel about its exclusion in the ardlings, because it does lessen the association of an innately anti-undead option.
I want to know what people's reactions to its lack, in short.
Do you think this about all planetouched, or just aasimar? And if not, why single aasimar out for it?
All goodly planed ones. You mostly have three kinds of celestials. Angels and the higher archons (tome, sword, trumpet, etc); these generally have wings, and are often associated with celestial bodies such as sun, stars and planets. Beast types, which includes all guardinals, a few of the lower archons (notably hound and bear), and I believe there's some CG dolphins, unicorn, pegasi, couatl (and the half-couatl, half-elven lillend). Lastly, we have the eladrin, which are basically celestial fairies and elves that can turn into energy or elements.
The sun/moon/star/etc type of celestial is what we normally think of when we talk about aasimar. "Shiny humans." Which is a fair description, given their association with glowy sky objects and stereotypically christian appearance.
Eladrin, as I have said, are basically elves, and thanks to 4e and the first Mordy book, they're technically playable now, though more limited.
Beast types... lots of individual write ups, and I'd love a generic one in the core, but that's beside the point. Beast people are a thing all over in D&D.
All three types of celestials can be represented by existing races with some radiance resistance coupled with a watered down Magic Initiate (divine). Something akin to the Fey-touched feat, basically. It would also allow us to consider beings like celestial goliaths and celestial halflings, both of which supposedly have their gods residing on the Upper Planes as well. We could have guardinal-touched beast folk without needing to reinvent the entire wheel.
I think the same could be said about genasi, and even tieflings. They could just get a feat with a damage resistance or two, and some innate spells, and call it a day.
But that wouldn't be interesting. At least in my view.
This is really at the heart of it. So many species features boil down to mostly just a modified Magic Initiate with a resistance or a skill proficiency thrown in. And most of the cultural aspects are gone too. Which I do agree was a good move, even just from a perspective of more freedom when creating settings and characters. But at that point, I agree that making them all some kind of plane touched Feat is actually better. It givers players more creative options when making characters. It's easier. And it cuts down on space. It's a win all around.
But there are a fair number of players who really need a species fleshed out. Without the separate write up, they might not see the option for what it was intended to be. It might not speak to them as much the Aasimar does. It might not spark the imagination the same way.
If space wasn't an issue, I would personally prefer both to exist. Have plane touched feats for all the major planes. And then have species with some actual features that are a little more interesting than just spells. Then you could make whatever character you wanted.
As it stands, the Dwarf, Orc, and Halfling features are just more interesting than any spell progression species. The new Goliath and Dragonborn are better because they are more unique, if not by a ton. And while I like the Tiefling covering more lower planes, the spells just don't make for a super exciting feature. Genasi are a cool concept to me, but it's the features that are unique to their elements that are more intersting than their spells.
I wish they could lean into that more in species design. Spells are okay, but they feel like an easy way out. I think that I like the second Ardling a little better than the first just because they tried to come up with something slightly more interesting, even if the abilities weren't that great and they lost too much of the celestial side. The ideal situation to me would be more interesting species AND plane touched feats both being available. I don't think it's too much to ask.
I think the same could be said about genasi, and even tieflings. They could just get a feat with a damage resistance or two, and some innate spells, and call it a day.
Not exactly. Devils, cthonics and demons have a decidedly non-human, non-elf, non-dwsrf, etc origin and association. Except Lolth and drow, but even then there's differences.
You will find dwarf, halfling, dragonborn and human shaped celestials if you head to Mount Celestia. You will not find the equivalent in the neutral or lower planes.
By and large, celestials are just the "goodly" species with a special template added. Fundamentally, the aesthetic, tropes and themes of a divine eladrin don't differ strongly from a divine or primal classed high elf.
But the themes and tropes of a tiefling fiend'lock are very much are different from, say, a cambion, even when they're the closest you can get. You cannot be summoned. You aren't routinely trying to corrupt people or strike infernal pacts with others in most dnd games - you are the one that has the pact. Tieflings do have a fiendish aesthetic, though, when no one else does.
Tieflings have also had established cultures in default 4th and some 5e settings, whereas aasimar/deva/ardlings never have, but always were individuals lurking in others' nations and cultures.
Ultimately, I get that I'm not going to make changes in WotC nor am I going to say people that love aasimar should do things my way.
But it is what I would do if I had to homebrew a celestial option for my game.
Derp. Apparently, I was being asked about species that get spells for features. Ignore my last post, then.
I hate spells as species thing. I especially hate attack spells - they scale like crap, and ironically 1dn tieflings won't want to go warlock, rogue or pally, three of the most popular class choices in previous editions, because of the free attack cantrip going to waste.
But... 80% + approval rating is hard to argue with.
EDIT - And no reason you can't make random outsider races using tiefling. I made a faux-gith using psionic resist and three spells. It's easy and very boring.
I generally give Tieflings a pass on this type of design, primarily because they did it first. (well, and Drow).
I also don't think that people are going to avoid playing certain classes just because they start with a ranged attack cantrip. It would just be another tool in the tool box for if you need it. I have personally just started playing a Chthonic Tiefling Paladin for example. I won't be using Chill Touch for the most part, but it will nice to have if I need a ranged attack.
I generally give Tieflings a pass on this type of design, primarily because they did it first. (well, and Drow).
I also don't think that people are going to avoid playing certain classes just because they start with a ranged attack cantrip. It would just be another tool in the tool box for if you need it. I have personally just started playing a Chthonic Tiefling Paladin for example. I won't be using Chill Touch for the most part, but it will nice to have if I need a ranged attack.
Edit: Also, your avatar is cool
Personally, I love it for Elves. Maybe some of the other races, I agree, but I absolutely love it on the Elves.
My only complaint is without Devil's Sight, Darkness is pretty situational. I wish there was some better usage for Drow and Tieflings that didn't require Devil's Sight
I generally give Tieflings a pass on this type of design, primarily because they did it first. (well, and Drow).
I also don't think that people are going to avoid playing certain classes just because they start with a ranged attack cantrip. It would just be another tool in the tool box for if you need it. I have personally just started playing a Chthonic Tiefling Paladin for example. I won't be using Chill Touch for the most part, but it will nice to have if I need a ranged attack.
Edit: Also, your avatar is cool
Personally, I love it for Elves. Maybe some of the other races, I agree, but I absolutely love it on the Elves.
My only complaint is without Devil's Sight, Darkness is pretty situational. I wish there was some better usage for Drow and Tieflings that didn't require Devil's Sight
I also don't mind magic for Elves at all. It fits them. I think Darkness is a good spell. People just want to maximize its potential too much maybe. Devil's Sight certainly makes it very strong. So strong you might just be annoying your party in the process. But Darkness is still a good spell without it. It has a lot of psychological potential on unsuspecting people, can cover a retreat, control a battlefield, cause a distraction, etc.
Personally, I love it for Elves. Maybe some of the other races, I agree, but I absolutely love it on the Elves.
My only complaint is without Devil's Sight, Darkness is pretty situational. I wish there was some better usage for Drow and Tieflings that didn't require Devil's Sight
C'mon, controlling line of sight, creating an intangible obstacle, is very useful any time you want to cover yourself from ranged attacks or hide anything.
Personally, I love it for Elves. Maybe some of the other races, I agree, but I absolutely love it on the Elves.
My only complaint is without Devil's Sight, Darkness is pretty situational. I wish there was some better usage for Drow and Tieflings that didn't require Devil's Sight
C'mon, controlling line of sight, creating an intangible obstacle, is very useful any time you want to cover yourself from ranged attacks or hide anything.
Those are all good usages, but I'd still say they're situational. A lot of times, depending on the size of the map, the ranged enemies will just go into the darkness as well and advantage+disadvantage = a straight roll. Yes, you can cancel magic abilities that literally require sight, but a lot of player abilities require you to see your target as well.
If the map is big enough that you can play whack a mole and pop in and out of the darkness, sure, but it can be just as harmful as helpful a lot of the time
Those are all good usages, but I'd still say they're situational. A lot of times, depending on the size of the map, the ranged enemies will just go into the darkness as well and advantage+disadvantage = a straight roll. Yes, you can cancel magic abilities that literally require sight, but a lot of player abilities require you to see your target as well.
If the map is big enough that you can play whack a mole and pop in and out of the darkness, sure, but it can be just as harmful as helpful a lot of the time
This is one of those moments when RAW doesn't make sense. If you're blind, how do you know where to shoot? I just ask my players which square in the darkness zone they want to their ranged attack to hit. Taught them not to waste effort pretty quickly. Of course, this applies to enemies, too.
Those are all good usages, but I'd still say they're situational. A lot of times, depending on the size of the map, the ranged enemies will just go into the darkness as well and advantage+disadvantage = a straight roll. Yes, you can cancel magic abilities that literally require sight, but a lot of player abilities require you to see your target as well.
If the map is big enough that you can play whack a mole and pop in and out of the darkness, sure, but it can be just as harmful as helpful a lot of the time
This is one of those moments when RAW doesn't make sense. If you're blind, how do you know where to shoot? I just ask my players which square in the darkness zone they want to their ranged attack to hit. Taught them not to waste effort pretty quickly. Of course, this applies to enemies, too.
Well that brings me back to my original point…RAW…darkness without Devil’s Sight is situational. Not bad, not great, but okay depending on the situation. If you tweak it to make it more powerful (it probably should work that way) then of course my assessment will change
Those are all good usages, but I'd still say they're situational. A lot of times, depending on the size of the map, the ranged enemies will just go into the darkness as well and advantage+disadvantage = a straight roll. Yes, you can cancel magic abilities that literally require sight, but a lot of player abilities require you to see your target as well.
If the map is big enough that you can play whack a mole and pop in and out of the darkness, sure, but it can be just as harmful as helpful a lot of the time
This is one of those moments when RAW doesn't make sense. If you're blind, how do you know where to shoot? I just ask my players which square in the darkness zone they want to their ranged attack to hit. Taught them not to waste effort pretty quickly. Of course, this applies to enemies, too.
For me the one exception to this would be if someone actually took the time to perception to listen for movement of individuals that hadn't taken the hide action to narrow down the square. At that point they knew where about they were. Still attacked at disadvantage, but if someone is going to spend an action to narrow it down for the team than that is what it will be. Of course with the way the new rules are as a Thief rogue or someone with Observant you could take the search action as a bonus action and still attack the same turn, but a subclass or feat to do that is worth it to me.
For me the one exception to this would be if someone actually took the time to perception to listen for movement of individuals that hadn't taken the hide action to narrow down the square. At that point they knew where about they were. Still attacked at disadvantage, but if someone is going to spend an action to narrow it down for the team than that is what it will be. Of course with the way the new rules are as a Thief rogue or someone with Observant you could take the search action as a bonus action and still attack the same turn, but a subclass or feat to do that is worth it to me.
That does sound like a decent addition to a Shifter.
It might be stepping on the Druid's toes, but I'd love to be able to have a 1/day or PB/day transformation into *that* animal
Like if I want to be a Kitsune or Cat, or whatever, I can just swap back and forth between a more humanoid form and that specific animal
Now that would be intersting, and cover a lot of mythological influences, I like it.
I had to go find this again. I loved this concept so much I keep thinking about it. Whether it's something to make Ardling more unique, or another species entirely, or just something to use in home games, I think it's so cool. It's very different from anything we have so far and it covers so many myths and folklore.
It doesn't even bother me if it's similar to Druid wild shape. So many species have features that copy class abilities. I think it could be made simpler and not as strong as wild shape to keep it from stepping on toes.
I might go with something like -
Pick one Beast creature stat block of CR 0 when you make the character. You can choose the actual appearance and name the animal to suit your character. You can use your Bonus Action to turn into this animal a number of times per day equal to your Proficiency Bonus. You use the animal's stats, but retain your Wis, Int, Cha, and your own thoughts and personality. All of your equipment is absorbed into your new form and cannot be used. Your HP is equal to the creature's HP + your PB. You can turn back into your humanoid form with a bonus action. You transform back automatically when the animal form's HP is reduced to 0.
Obviously this isn't written in proper rules language. I just wanted to get the idea across. This isn't a feature that would be used often in combat, except maybe to run away. But I think it would be a lot of fun in other encounters and match the myths well. It wouldn't be replacing the Druid's Wild Shape, but would be a nice compliment to it for some characters. CR 0 offers a lot of different animal types for stats. If you can reflavor them, it should cover almost any normal animal you would want. You could expand it to include CR 1/8 beasts and get even more. But it might be necessary to adjust some of the stats at that point.
CR 0 - Baboon Badger Bat Cat Crab Deer Eagle Frog Giant Fire Beetle Goat Hawk Hyena Jackal Lizard Octopus Owl Quipper Rat Raven Scorpion Sea Horse Spider Vulture Weasel
I would then expect the species to have some hints at the animal in their appearance. And some other features like a skill proficiency, or spell like abilities that tie into the theme. But changing into an actual animal could really work for a very interesting new species.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Then take the Aasimar as written and alter Scourge to manifest the appearance of the deity or "Spirit Animal" during their ability. That way it doesn't alter the Aasimar too much. Then they won't deviate too much from standard Aasimar but can still fill that beastial niche.
I still think aasimar should just be a background + feat. Make a shiny hooman, a shiny elf, a shiny beast person, a shiny dwarf, etc
Actually, a question/ thought. DMG aasimar and Volo's had necrotic resistance. The ardlings never did. Only radiance.
Presumably it was dropped to make room for baby wings alongside the DMG spells on top of the odd similaity to cthonic tieflings.
How important do you all feel the necrotic resist is to the identity of an aasimar?
All goodly planed ones. You mostly have three kinds of celestials. Angels and the higher archons (tome, sword, trumpet, etc); these generally have wings, and are often associated with celestial bodies such as sun, stars and planets. Beast types, which includes all guardinals, a few of the lower archons (notably hound and bear), and I believe there's some CG dolphins, unicorn, pegasi, couatl (and the half-couatl, half-elven lillend). Lastly, we have the eladrin, which are basically celestial fairies and elves that can turn into energy or elements.
The sun/moon/star/etc type of celestial is what we normally think of when we talk about aasimar. "Shiny humans." Which is a fair description, given their association with glowy sky objects and stereotypically christian appearance.
Eladrin, as I have said, are basically elves, and thanks to 4e and the first Mordy book, they're technically playable now, though more limited.
Beast types... lots of individual write ups, and I'd love a generic one in the core, but that's beside the point. Beast people are a thing all over in D&D.
All three types of celestials can be represented by existing races with some radiance resistance coupled with a watered down Magic Initiate (divine). Something akin to the Fey-touched feat, basically. It would also allow us to consider beings like celestial goliaths and celestial halflings, both of which supposedly have their gods residing on the Upper Planes as well. We could have guardinal-touched beast folk without needing to reinvent the entire wheel.
I'm aware that's why the writers did it; coupled with the association with paladin/cleric class, it made them very good undead hunters. I'm more asking how people feel about its exclusion in the ardlings, because it does lessen the association of an innately anti-undead option.
I want to know what people's reactions to its lack, in short.
It might be stepping on the Druid's toes, but I'd love to be able to have a 1/day or PB/day transformation into *that* animal
Like if I want to be a Kitsune or Cat, or whatever, I can just swap back and forth between a more humanoid form and that specific animal
This is really at the heart of it. So many species features boil down to mostly just a modified Magic Initiate with a resistance or a skill proficiency thrown in. And most of the cultural aspects are gone too. Which I do agree was a good move, even just from a perspective of more freedom when creating settings and characters. But at that point, I agree that making them all some kind of plane touched Feat is actually better. It givers players more creative options when making characters. It's easier. And it cuts down on space. It's a win all around.
But there are a fair number of players who really need a species fleshed out. Without the separate write up, they might not see the option for what it was intended to be. It might not speak to them as much the Aasimar does. It might not spark the imagination the same way.
If space wasn't an issue, I would personally prefer both to exist. Have plane touched feats for all the major planes. And then have species with some actual features that are a little more interesting than just spells. Then you could make whatever character you wanted.
As it stands, the Dwarf, Orc, and Halfling features are just more interesting than any spell progression species. The new Goliath and Dragonborn are better because they are more unique, if not by a ton. And while I like the Tiefling covering more lower planes, the spells just don't make for a super exciting feature. Genasi are a cool concept to me, but it's the features that are unique to their elements that are more intersting than their spells.
I wish they could lean into that more in species design. Spells are okay, but they feel like an easy way out. I think that I like the second Ardling a little better than the first just because they tried to come up with something slightly more interesting, even if the abilities weren't that great and they lost too much of the celestial side. The ideal situation to me would be more interesting species AND plane touched feats both being available. I don't think it's too much to ask.
Now that would be intersting, and cover a lot of mythological influences, I like it.
You will find dwarf, halfling, dragonborn and human shaped celestials if you head to Mount Celestia. You will not find the equivalent in the neutral or lower planes.
By and large, celestials are just the "goodly" species with a special template added. Fundamentally, the aesthetic, tropes and themes of a divine eladrin don't differ strongly from a divine or primal classed high elf.
But the themes and tropes of a tiefling fiend'lock are very much are different from, say, a cambion, even when they're the closest you can get. You cannot be summoned. You aren't routinely trying to corrupt people or strike infernal pacts with others in most dnd games - you are the one that has the pact. Tieflings do have a fiendish aesthetic, though, when no one else does.
Tieflings have also had established cultures in default 4th and some 5e settings, whereas aasimar/deva/ardlings never have, but always were individuals lurking in others' nations and cultures.
Ultimately, I get that I'm not going to make changes in WotC nor am I going to say people that love aasimar should do things my way.
But it is what I would do if I had to homebrew a celestial option for my game.
Derp. Apparently, I was being asked about species that get spells for features. Ignore my last post, then.
I hate spells as species thing. I especially hate attack spells - they scale like crap, and ironically 1dn tieflings won't want to go warlock, rogue or pally, three of the most popular class choices in previous editions, because of the free attack cantrip going to waste.
But... 80% + approval rating is hard to argue with.
EDIT - And no reason you can't make random outsider races using tiefling. I made a faux-gith using psionic resist and three spells. It's easy and very boring.
I generally give Tieflings a pass on this type of design, primarily because they did it first. (well, and Drow).
I also don't think that people are going to avoid playing certain classes just because they start with a ranged attack cantrip. It would just be another tool in the tool box for if you need it. I have personally just started playing a Chthonic Tiefling Paladin for example. I won't be using Chill Touch for the most part, but it will nice to have if I need a ranged attack.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Personally, I love it for Elves. Maybe some of the other races, I agree, but I absolutely love it on the Elves.
My only complaint is without Devil's Sight, Darkness is pretty situational. I wish there was some better usage for Drow and Tieflings that didn't require Devil's Sight
I also don't mind magic for Elves at all. It fits them. I think Darkness is a good spell. People just want to maximize its potential too much maybe. Devil's Sight certainly makes it very strong. So strong you might just be annoying your party in the process. But Darkness is still a good spell without it. It has a lot of psychological potential on unsuspecting people, can cover a retreat, control a battlefield, cause a distraction, etc.
C'mon, controlling line of sight, creating an intangible obstacle, is very useful any time you want to cover yourself from ranged attacks or hide anything.
Those are all good usages, but I'd still say they're situational. A lot of times, depending on the size of the map, the ranged enemies will just go into the darkness as well and advantage+disadvantage = a straight roll. Yes, you can cancel magic abilities that literally require sight, but a lot of player abilities require you to see your target as well.
If the map is big enough that you can play whack a mole and pop in and out of the darkness, sure, but it can be just as harmful as helpful a lot of the time
I personally find that Darkness goes up and down in value depending on DM play style.
But then I allow spell swapping. You already can with Magic Initiate and classes ...
This is one of those moments when RAW doesn't make sense. If you're blind, how do you know where to shoot? I just ask my players which square in the darkness zone they want to their ranged attack to hit. Taught them not to waste effort pretty quickly. Of course, this applies to enemies, too.
Well that brings me back to my original point…RAW…darkness without Devil’s Sight is situational. Not bad, not great, but okay depending on the situation. If you tweak it to make it more powerful (it probably should work that way) then of course my assessment will change
For me the one exception to this would be if someone actually took the time to perception to listen for movement of individuals that hadn't taken the hide action to narrow down the square. At that point they knew where about they were. Still attacked at disadvantage, but if someone is going to spend an action to narrow it down for the team than that is what it will be. Of course with the way the new rules are as a Thief rogue or someone with Observant you could take the search action as a bonus action and still attack the same turn, but a subclass or feat to do that is worth it to me.
That does sound like a decent addition to a Shifter.
I had to go find this again. I loved this concept so much I keep thinking about it. Whether it's something to make Ardling more unique, or another species entirely, or just something to use in home games, I think it's so cool. It's very different from anything we have so far and it covers so many myths and folklore.
It doesn't even bother me if it's similar to Druid wild shape. So many species have features that copy class abilities. I think it could be made simpler and not as strong as wild shape to keep it from stepping on toes.
I might go with something like -
Pick one Beast creature stat block of CR 0 when you make the character. You can choose the actual appearance and name the animal to suit your character. You can use your Bonus Action to turn into this animal a number of times per day equal to your Proficiency Bonus. You use the animal's stats, but retain your Wis, Int, Cha, and your own thoughts and personality. All of your equipment is absorbed into your new form and cannot be used. Your HP is equal to the creature's HP + your PB. You can turn back into your humanoid form with a bonus action. You transform back automatically when the animal form's HP is reduced to 0.
Obviously this isn't written in proper rules language. I just wanted to get the idea across. This isn't a feature that would be used often in combat, except maybe to run away. But I think it would be a lot of fun in other encounters and match the myths well. It wouldn't be replacing the Druid's Wild Shape, but would be a nice compliment to it for some characters. CR 0 offers a lot of different animal types for stats. If you can reflavor them, it should cover almost any normal animal you would want. You could expand it to include CR 1/8 beasts and get even more. But it might be necessary to adjust some of the stats at that point.
CR 0 -
Baboon
Badger
Bat
Cat
Crab
Deer
Eagle
Frog
Giant Fire Beetle
Goat
Hawk
Hyena
Jackal
Lizard
Octopus
Owl
Quipper
Rat
Raven
Scorpion
Sea Horse
Spider
Vulture
Weasel
I would then expect the species to have some hints at the animal in their appearance. And some other features like a skill proficiency, or spell like abilities that tie into the theme. But changing into an actual animal could really work for a very interesting new species.