Of course we don't have the 40k responses that WotC got for theirs, but it is interesting none the less.
No offense, but that poll could very little interaction, and I do not think we can really learn much from it. 41 votes is a tiny sample size, and my guess is that the wider fanbase will have a very different opinion than what that poll showed. In short, outliers exist and the smaller the sample size, the more likely the outliers are to occur. As such, I think it is extremely possible that this UAs version of the Ardling is much more liked than the survey showed.
No offense taken, but I did notice that you ignored the rest of the post.
Yeah, sorry, I probably should've paid more attention to that bit. However, I just think that using the other poll to make any real conclusions is not a good idea.
Actually, this becomes a skewed poll assuming people want Ardlings in the PHB, especially the last question.
It is skewed a bit, but is would be unrealistic to expect that 3 large polls would have no errors. These things happen, and I don't think it alters the data drastically.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 & explainHERE.
Your poll is missing some options, like “not wanting Ardlings in the PHB at all,” “other,” etc.
Seconded.
To be fair and accurate to the poll missing "not wanting Ardling in the PHB at all" is not relevant to the polls question at all. If you don't believe anything can make the Ardling better for the PHB than your opinion is worthless on the subject of making the Ardling better for the PHB. It isn't constructive or helpful, so that option isn't there.
I've talked about it elsewhere, but I think the problem is that the Ardling was intended as a new celestial option with a purely cosmetic detail of animal-like features.
However, the species didn't do enough to make it feel like anything but a weird version of an Aasimar with an animal head, and the general response was more excited for the animal aspect than the celestial aspect. So now we have this second version which does a much better job of being a generic beastfolk, but with weird, uninteresting celestial features tacked on... and because of those same celestial features, the beast aspect still ends up being mostly cosmetic, except now it's preventing the celestial features from being more interesting, since the focus can only go halfway in either direction.
I think that the Aasimar is kind of meant to be the celestial answer to the Tiefling... however, there are only 3 subrace options for the Aasimar, whereas there are like... a dozen different tiefling subraces, plus the variant option to get a DEX bonus instead of CHA, or the ability to just straight up have a fly speed. So with that many tiefling options, it makes sense to try and also expand the celestial options... but the animal heads just feel restricting when expanding into Celestial creatures. I'm more in favor of just including Aasimar as a PHB race as a compliment to Tiefling, and just making Ardling one of the subrace (or is it subspecies?) options.
However, almost on accident, they stumbled onto a generic beastfolk that is much easier to understand and has more broad appeal. I don't think it will fully replace the more popular existing beastfolk, like Tabaxi or Tortles, which have very specific features that would be hard to give as generic options to choose from, but it gives a lot of room for the much larger percentage of players who want to play as some kind of animal-person to play as whatever they feel like in One D&D, without having to wait for a species based on their preferred animal to get added to the game.
I've talked about it elsewhere, but I think the problem is that the Ardling was intended as a new celestial option with a purely cosmetic detail of animal-like features.
However, the species didn't do enough to make it feel like anything but a weird version of an Aasimar with an animal head, and the general response was more excited for the animal aspect than the celestial aspect. So now we have this second version which does a much better job of being a generic beastfolk, but with weird, uninteresting celestial features tacked on... and because of those same celestial features, the beast aspect still ends up being mostly cosmetic, except now it's preventing the celestial features from being more interesting, since the focus can only go halfway in either direction.
I think that the Aasimar is kind of meant to be the celestial answer to the Tiefling... however, there are only 3 subrace options for the Aasimar, whereas there are like... a dozen different tiefling subraces, plus the variant option to get a DEX bonus instead of CHA, or the ability to just straight up have a fly speed. So with that many tiefling options, it makes sense to try and also expand the celestial options... but the animal heads just feel restricting when expanding into Celestial creatures. I'm more in favor of just including Aasimar as a PHB race as a compliment to Tiefling, and just making Ardling one of the subrace (or is it subspecies?) options.
However, almost on accident, they stumbled onto a generic beastfolk that is much easier to understand and has more broad appeal. I don't think it will fully replace the more popular existing beastfolk, like Tabaxi or Tortles, which have very specific features that would be hard to give as generic options to choose from, but it gives a lot of room for the much larger percentage of players who want to play as some kind of animal-person to play as whatever they feel like in One D&D, without having to wait for a species based on their preferred animal to get added to the game.
This is pretty much how I feel.
Everything made sense when there was the Aasimar and the Tiefling. They each kind of represented only one type of outer planar influence. They weren't exactly mirrors, but they were close enough for most players. And most (though not all) tables felt comfortable reflavoring the cosmetic and lore aspects to cover a wider range of celestial or internal beings.
Then 1DnD opened up Tieflings to cover all of the evil planes. That's very cool and I welcome the change. Especially because they gave us so many different appearance ideas based on the various denizens of those planes! This was the inspiration, and in some ways permission, that so many people needed to broaden their view of what a Tiefling could look like and represent.
But then instead of doing the same for the Aasimar... they presented the Ardling. Which covered all the good aligned planes with its spell choices. But then narrowly defined the appearance. It was an... odd decision to say the least.
I like the new Tiefling. I wish we could get a new celestial mirror. One that has all of the planes represented, both in mechanics and appearance. One that inspires people to look outside of the standard 'angelic' idea that the Aasimar was stuck in.
I don't really care what they call it. Aasimar, Ardling, something else. I just think it makes sense to have a good planar opposite to the Tiefling, with all the great inspiration the new one has. A more flexible beastfolk option is a side bonus. I would want it to be it's own thing with its own unique identity. But that's all just me.
I've talked about it elsewhere, but I think the problem is that the Ardling was intended as a new celestial option with a purely cosmetic detail of animal-like features.
However, the species didn't do enough to make it feel like anything but a weird version of an Aasimar with an animal head, and the general response was more excited for the animal aspect than the celestial aspect. So now we have this second version which does a much better job of being a generic beastfolk, but with weird, uninteresting celestial features tacked on... and because of those same celestial features, the beast aspect still ends up being mostly cosmetic, except now it's preventing the celestial features from being more interesting, since the focus can only go halfway in either direction.
I think that the Aasimar is kind of meant to be the celestial answer to the Tiefling... however, there are only 3 subrace options for the Aasimar, whereas there are like... a dozen different tiefling subraces, plus the variant option to get a DEX bonus instead of CHA, or the ability to just straight up have a fly speed. So with that many tiefling options, it makes sense to try and also expand the celestial options... but the animal heads just feel restricting when expanding into Celestial creatures. I'm more in favor of just including Aasimar as a PHB race as a compliment to Tiefling, and just making Ardling one of the subrace (or is it subspecies?) options.
However, almost on accident, they stumbled onto a generic beastfolk that is much easier to understand and has more broad appeal. I don't think it will fully replace the more popular existing beastfolk, like Tabaxi or Tortles, which have very specific features that would be hard to give as generic options to choose from, but it gives a lot of room for the much larger percentage of players who want to play as some kind of animal-person to play as whatever they feel like in One D&D, without having to wait for a species based on their preferred animal to get added to the game.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Except for the part with many tiefling subraces, that got condensed into three lineages, which is fine. Ardlings had a weird start with unclear direction and identity, ended up competing with aasimar and being more interesting in their beast aspect. I fully agree that a generic beastfolk species will be good for the game, exactly for the reason you stated.
I've talked about it elsewhere, but I think the problem is that the Ardling was intended as a new celestial option with a purely cosmetic detail of animal-like features.
However, the species didn't do enough to make it feel like anything but a weird version of an Aasimar with an animal head, and the general response was more excited for the animal aspect than the celestial aspect. So now we have this second version which does a much better job of being a generic beastfolk, but with weird, uninteresting celestial features tacked on... and because of those same celestial features, the beast aspect still ends up being mostly cosmetic, except now it's preventing the celestial features from being more interesting, since the focus can only go halfway in either direction.
I think that the Aasimar is kind of meant to be the celestial answer to the Tiefling... however, there are only 3 subrace options for the Aasimar, whereas there are like... a dozen different tiefling subraces, plus the variant option to get a DEX bonus instead of CHA, or the ability to just straight up have a fly speed. So with that many tiefling options, it makes sense to try and also expand the celestial options... but the animal heads just feel restricting when expanding into Celestial creatures. I'm more in favor of just including Aasimar as a PHB race as a compliment to Tiefling, and just making Ardling one of the subrace (or is it subspecies?) options.
However, almost on accident, they stumbled onto a generic beastfolk that is much easier to understand and has more broad appeal. I don't think it will fully replace the more popular existing beastfolk, like Tabaxi or Tortles, which have very specific features that would be hard to give as generic options to choose from, but it gives a lot of room for the much larger percentage of players who want to play as some kind of animal-person to play as whatever they feel like in One D&D, without having to wait for a species based on their preferred animal to get added to the game.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Except for the part with many tiefling subraces, that got condensed into three lineages, which is fine. Ardlings had a weird start with unclear direction and identity, ended up competing with aasimar and being more interesting in their beast aspect. I fully agree that a generic beastfolk species will be good for the game, exactly for the reason you stated.
Honestly, as long as the PHB has both the animal head race option AND a Celestial race in it I am good to go. Because then I can make a half-celestial Race/Half-beast person race and get my celestial beast person by using the Celestial races features and the beast persons looks. It just needs both in the PHB. This is also the way I felt about the whole "only having beast race celestial option in the PHB". The Half-race rules meant that you could always have made a human/ardling half breed and made your celestial look more human with celestial powers, or elf, or dragon or anything. The Half-race options really open up a lot. Celestial Option needed, beast person option needed. Once that is done the freedom is ALL there. Beast person half race with Dwarf for tremor sense if you feel that fits the beast you want better. Or Elf/beast person if you want a less magical elf. Celestial/Dragonbord if you want a celestial dragon.
Half-race solves a lot of issues, we just need a beast and a celestial.
Ah yes, I forgot that the Tieflings got whittled down in One D&D, but I was more directly comparing 5e Tiefling to Aasimar... I feel like the Aasimar has never really felt equal to the Tiefling in play... it's not as visually distinct, and it has much more restrictive race options. I think it makes sense for OneDND to expand the options to the Aasimar to make them feel as tempting as tiefling to players wanting a supernatural tie. I think, on some level, that was the intent with the Ardling... suddenly if you want to be an animal person, you're also a celestial, which feels like it would be a reliable double-dip to get two different demographics interested in the same race... but what they ended up with was something that didn't appeal to the people who wanted to be an "angel", because suddenly they've gotta have a horse head or whatever, and it doesn't appeal to people who want to be an animal person because suddenly you're also part-angel and you have to figure out how that fits into your backstory when really all you wanted was to be an otter-person.
Ah yes, I forgot that the Tieflings got whittled down in One D&D, but I was more directly comparing 5e Tiefling to Aasimar... I feel like the Aasimar has never really felt equal to the Tiefling in play... it's not as visually distinct, and it has much more restrictive race options. I think it makes sense for OneDND to expand the options to the Aasimar to make them feel as tempting as tiefling to players wanting a supernatural tie. I think, on some level, that was the intent with the Ardling... suddenly if you want to be an animal person, you're also a celestial, which feels like it would be a reliable double-dip to get two different demographics interested in the same race... but what they ended up with was something that didn't appeal to the people who wanted to be an "angel", because suddenly they've gotta have a horse head or whatever, and it doesn't appeal to people who want to be an animal person because suddenly you're also part-angel and you have to figure out how that fits into your backstory when really all you wanted was to be an otter-person.
All they really needed to do is open up the description of Aasimar the way they did Tiefling and maybe rewrite one of the 3 forms to have Guardinal themed abilities. What ever those would be.
I dislike the new version of the ardling. I like the idea of animal-headed celestials because it allows you to play an Egyptian god-like character and could be really cool. But I dislike the idea of changing it into a beast-folk race. The animal heads should be related to different gods, like raven headed ardlings are associated with the raven queen or other death gods, crocodile headed ardlings with Offler, Eagle headed ones with the sun god. A list should be included that shows which animal heads are associated with which gods. They wouldn't be required to follow them, but it would affect them. Making them a way for players to play random animal characters seems boring to me. They should have more celestial abilities.
Ah yes, I forgot that the Tieflings got whittled down in One D&D, but I was more directly comparing 5e Tiefling to Aasimar... I feel like the Aasimar has never really felt equal to the Tiefling in play... it's not as visually distinct, and it has much more restrictive race options. I think it makes sense for OneDND to expand the options to the Aasimar to make them feel as tempting as tiefling to players wanting a supernatural tie. I think, on some level, that was the intent with the Ardling... suddenly if you want to be an animal person, you're also a celestial, which feels like it would be a reliable double-dip to get two different demographics interested in the same race... but what they ended up with was something that didn't appeal to the people who wanted to be an "angel", because suddenly they've gotta have a horse head or whatever, and it doesn't appeal to people who want to be an animal person because suddenly you're also part-angel and you have to figure out how that fits into your backstory when really all you wanted was to be an otter-person.
Yeah, pretty much. In the end, if one wants a celestial with a beast head, one can look at the new rule for half-breed species and play an aasimar flavored with bestial appearance or play one of beast races and flavor it with angelic glow or something. They really need to tune up and diversify the aasimar first.
Ah yes, I forgot that the Tieflings got whittled down in One D&D, but I was more directly comparing 5e Tiefling to Aasimar... I feel like the Aasimar has never really felt equal to the Tiefling in play... it's not as visually distinct, and it has much more restrictive race options. I think it makes sense for OneDND to expand the options to the Aasimar to make them feel as tempting as tiefling to players wanting a supernatural tie. I think, on some level, that was the intent with the Ardling... suddenly if you want to be an animal person, you're also a celestial, which feels like it would be a reliable double-dip to get two different demographics interested in the same race... but what they ended up with was something that didn't appeal to the people who wanted to be an "angel", because suddenly they've gotta have a horse head or whatever, and it doesn't appeal to people who want to be an animal person because suddenly you're also part-angel and you have to figure out how that fits into your backstory when really all you wanted was to be an otter-person.
Yeah, pretty much. In the end, if one wants a celestial with a beast head, one can look at the new rule for half-breed species and play an aasimar flavored with bestial appearance or play one of beast races and flavor it with angelic glow or something. They really need to tune up and diversify the aasimar first.
Ya, the half race options really do a lot. It is why I didn't mind old ardling. Want no beadt head celestial, half ardling half human. No beast head. Want an otter person, half ardling half triton. Badger person half ardling, half dwarf. If we make it a beast race, as long as there is a celestial and both options are solid it really isn't going to matter in the end.
Anubis, but really want more hellish, half ardling half tiefling.
Edit: current Ardling doesnt really change this. If you want an effectiveotter person you aren't picking swimmer ardling, you should pick half ardling half triton. Badger person, there is no option that matches that, still half ardling half dwarf. The new options are too weak for any beast person.
Ya, the half race options really do a lot. It is why I didn't mind old ardling. Want no beadt head celestial, half ardling half human. No beast head. Want an otter person, half ardling half triton. Badger person half ardling, half dwarf. If we make it a beast race, as long as there is a celestial and both options are solid it really isn't going to matter in the end.
Anubis, but really want more hellish, half ardling half tiefling.
Edit: current Ardling doesnt really change this. If you want an effectiveotter person you aren't picking swimmer ardling, you should pick half ardling half triton. Badger person, there is no option that matches that, still half ardling half dwarf. The new options are too weak for any beast person.
Thing is, ardlings are already half-breeds to begin with. They have half-celestial and half-beast themes. One could try to make an otter person by taking ardling with triton "skin", but what the hell is that divine magic stuff? Why does this belong to an otter person?
Ya, the half race options really do a lot. It is why I didn't mind old ardling. Want no beadt head celestial, half ardling half human. No beast head. Want an otter person, half ardling half triton. Badger person half ardling, half dwarf. If we make it a beast race, as long as there is a celestial and both options are solid it really isn't going to matter in the end.
Anubis, but really want more hellish, half ardling half tiefling.
Edit: current Ardling doesnt really change this. If you want an effectiveotter person you aren't picking swimmer ardling, you should pick half ardling half triton. Badger person, there is no option that matches that, still half ardling half dwarf. The new options are too weak for any beast person.
Thing is, ardlings are already half-breeds to begin with. They have half-celestial and half-beast themes. One could try to make an otter person by taking ardling with triton "skin", but what the hell is that divine magic stuff? Why does this belong to an otter person?
Triton abilities, ardling skin is the half and half. Divine magic belongs on a divine race, if that divine race has a unique interesting look all the better.
Actually, this becomes a skewed poll assuming people want Ardlings in the PHB, especially the last question.
Yeah I've apologized for that, I'm sorry. It's okay to leave it blank if you don't want either in the book. And the thread is open for comments.
Yeah, sorry, I probably should've paid more attention to that bit. However, I just think that using the other poll to make any real conclusions is not a good idea.
It is skewed a bit, but is would be unrealistic to expect that 3 large polls would have no errors. These things happen, and I don't think it alters the data drastically.
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.Seconded.
To be fair and accurate to the poll missing "not wanting Ardling in the PHB at all" is not relevant to the polls question at all. If you don't believe anything can make the Ardling better for the PHB than your opinion is worthless on the subject of making the Ardling better for the PHB. It isn't constructive or helpful, so that option isn't there.
I've talked about it elsewhere, but I think the problem is that the Ardling was intended as a new celestial option with a purely cosmetic detail of animal-like features.
However, the species didn't do enough to make it feel like anything but a weird version of an Aasimar with an animal head, and the general response was more excited for the animal aspect than the celestial aspect. So now we have this second version which does a much better job of being a generic beastfolk, but with weird, uninteresting celestial features tacked on... and because of those same celestial features, the beast aspect still ends up being mostly cosmetic, except now it's preventing the celestial features from being more interesting, since the focus can only go halfway in either direction.
I think that the Aasimar is kind of meant to be the celestial answer to the Tiefling... however, there are only 3 subrace options for the Aasimar, whereas there are like... a dozen different tiefling subraces, plus the variant option to get a DEX bonus instead of CHA, or the ability to just straight up have a fly speed. So with that many tiefling options, it makes sense to try and also expand the celestial options... but the animal heads just feel restricting when expanding into Celestial creatures. I'm more in favor of just including Aasimar as a PHB race as a compliment to Tiefling, and just making Ardling one of the subrace (or is it subspecies?) options.
However, almost on accident, they stumbled onto a generic beastfolk that is much easier to understand and has more broad appeal. I don't think it will fully replace the more popular existing beastfolk, like Tabaxi or Tortles, which have very specific features that would be hard to give as generic options to choose from, but it gives a lot of room for the much larger percentage of players who want to play as some kind of animal-person to play as whatever they feel like in One D&D, without having to wait for a species based on their preferred animal to get added to the game.
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
This is pretty much how I feel.
Everything made sense when there was the Aasimar and the Tiefling. They each kind of represented only one type of outer planar influence. They weren't exactly mirrors, but they were close enough for most players. And most (though not all) tables felt comfortable reflavoring the cosmetic and lore aspects to cover a wider range of celestial or internal beings.
Then 1DnD opened up Tieflings to cover all of the evil planes. That's very cool and I welcome the change. Especially because they gave us so many different appearance ideas based on the various denizens of those planes! This was the inspiration, and in some ways permission, that so many people needed to broaden their view of what a Tiefling could look like and represent.
But then instead of doing the same for the Aasimar... they presented the Ardling. Which covered all the good aligned planes with its spell choices. But then narrowly defined the appearance. It was an... odd decision to say the least.
I like the new Tiefling. I wish we could get a new celestial mirror. One that has all of the planes represented, both in mechanics and appearance. One that inspires people to look outside of the standard 'angelic' idea that the Aasimar was stuck in.
I don't really care what they call it. Aasimar, Ardling, something else. I just think it makes sense to have a good planar opposite to the Tiefling, with all the great inspiration the new one has. A more flexible beastfolk option is a side bonus. I would want it to be it's own thing with its own unique identity. But that's all just me.
I said similar on a few threads when the Origins ardling species came out, and how it was trying to be the new aasimar.
Honestly, wish they'd just do an aasimar and a generic beastfolk. That'd be good.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Except for the part with many tiefling subraces, that got condensed into three lineages, which is fine. Ardlings had a weird start with unclear direction and identity, ended up competing with aasimar and being more interesting in their beast aspect. I fully agree that a generic beastfolk species will be good for the game, exactly for the reason you stated.
Honestly, as long as the PHB has both the animal head race option AND a Celestial race in it I am good to go. Because then I can make a half-celestial Race/Half-beast person race and get my celestial beast person by using the Celestial races features and the beast persons looks. It just needs both in the PHB. This is also the way I felt about the whole "only having beast race celestial option in the PHB". The Half-race rules meant that you could always have made a human/ardling half breed and made your celestial look more human with celestial powers, or elf, or dragon or anything. The Half-race options really open up a lot. Celestial Option needed, beast person option needed. Once that is done the freedom is ALL there. Beast person half race with Dwarf for tremor sense if you feel that fits the beast you want better. Or Elf/beast person if you want a less magical elf. Celestial/Dragonbord if you want a celestial dragon.
Half-race solves a lot of issues, we just need a beast and a celestial.
Ah yes, I forgot that the Tieflings got whittled down in One D&D, but I was more directly comparing 5e Tiefling to Aasimar... I feel like the Aasimar has never really felt equal to the Tiefling in play... it's not as visually distinct, and it has much more restrictive race options. I think it makes sense for OneDND to expand the options to the Aasimar to make them feel as tempting as tiefling to players wanting a supernatural tie. I think, on some level, that was the intent with the Ardling... suddenly if you want to be an animal person, you're also a celestial, which feels like it would be a reliable double-dip to get two different demographics interested in the same race... but what they ended up with was something that didn't appeal to the people who wanted to be an "angel", because suddenly they've gotta have a horse head or whatever, and it doesn't appeal to people who want to be an animal person because suddenly you're also part-angel and you have to figure out how that fits into your backstory when really all you wanted was to be an otter-person.
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
All they really needed to do is open up the description of Aasimar the way they did Tiefling and maybe rewrite one of the 3 forms to have Guardinal themed abilities. What ever those would be.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I dislike the new version of the ardling. I like the idea of animal-headed celestials because it allows you to play an Egyptian god-like character and could be really cool. But I dislike the idea of changing it into a beast-folk race. The animal heads should be related to different gods, like raven headed ardlings are associated with the raven queen or other death gods, crocodile headed ardlings with Offler, Eagle headed ones with the sun god. A list should be included that shows which animal heads are associated with which gods. They wouldn't be required to follow them, but it would affect them. Making them a way for players to play random animal characters seems boring to me. They should have more celestial abilities.
Yeah, pretty much. In the end, if one wants a celestial with a beast head, one can look at the new rule for half-breed species and play an aasimar flavored with bestial appearance or play one of beast races and flavor it with angelic glow or something. They really need to tune up and diversify the aasimar first.
Ya, the half race options really do a lot. It is why I didn't mind old ardling. Want no beadt head celestial, half ardling half human. No beast head. Want an otter person, half ardling half triton. Badger person half ardling, half dwarf. If we make it a beast race, as long as there is a celestial and both options are solid it really isn't going to matter in the end.
Anubis, but really want more hellish, half ardling half tiefling.
Edit: current Ardling doesnt really change this. If you want an effectiveotter person you aren't picking swimmer ardling, you should pick half ardling half triton. Badger person, there is no option that matches that, still half ardling half dwarf. The new options are too weak for any beast person.
Thing is, ardlings are already half-breeds to begin with. They have half-celestial and half-beast themes. One could try to make an otter person by taking ardling with triton "skin", but what the hell is that divine magic stuff? Why does this belong to an otter person?
To please the Ahuitzotl, of course! 😜
MAY HE COME AND DEVOUR THE INFIDELS! THE DAY OF HIS GLORIOUS RETURN IS NEAR! IA! IA! WGAH'NAGL FHTAGN!
Umm... sorry, old habits.
Triton abilities, ardling skin is the half and half. Divine magic belongs on a divine race, if that divine race has a unique interesting look all the better.
Let those who haven't ripped out the hearts of their enemies and offered them to Tlaloc in exchange for a bountiful harvest cast the first stone.