1.) "REPLACING ALL SPELLCASTERS' SPELL LISTS WITH THREE GENERIC AWFUL SPELL LISTS INSTEAD!" The Arcane, Divine, and Primal spell lists are in addition to existing class spell lists, not a replacement for existing class spell lists. They exist as broad categorizations that are useful to specific subclasses and specific feats/abilities, such as Magic Initiate. They are not intended to replace class spell lists and would do a damn poor job of it as a number of existing classes mix spells from multiple lists. Your wizard will still by the wizziest wizzerd. Don't panic.
2.) "REPLACING MY AASIMAR WITH THESE WEIRD CREEPY ANIMAL CROSSING WANNABES!" Aasimar have never been a PHB species. The very first aasimar was an example of how to homebrew a new species by altering an existing species' statblock in the DMG, which people latched onto because they wanted Majestic Golden Angel People to combat the thronging legions of Saucy Crimson Devil People. "Official" aasimar came later in Volo's Guide to DM Headaches, and then in M3. Aasimar live in M3, not in the PHB. They're not being replaced any more than any other non-PHB species is; this document is concerned solely with nuPHB stuff, so of course aasimar didn't bear mentioning.
3.) "REMOVING CRITICAL HITS FROM D&D FOREVAR!" The playtest document is experimenting with removing crits from monsters, and turning critical hits into a player-only ability. Jeremy Crawford laid out, in crystal clear unmistakable terms, that this is an experiment. The playtest document is just that, and if there's enough outrage then they'll back off and reinstate monster crits. But frankly, the dev team's justification for removing monster crits is actually very good. It allows the team more freedom to design cool monsters and has a nontrivial impact on encounter balancing. Challenge Rating will work better when monsters can't randomly deal double damage for no reason, and treating Recharge as the monster-only counterpart to the PCs' ability to Crit is a really cool dynamic. try it out, you may find yourself agreeing with them.
4.) "RUINING ABILITY CHECKS AND SAVING THROWS WITH THIS 'd20 TEST' CRAP!" "d20 Test" is simply a easy and convenient shorthand for 'a roll which involves the d20." Nothing is actually changing about attack rolls, ability checks, or saving throws, other than the fact that the Internet [REDACTED] couldn't grasp "Nat 1s/20s only do special things on attack rolls" managed to get that rule changed. Odds are quite good that the only thing the d20 Test rules actually changed was how you were (incorrectly) already playing anyways.
5.) "TAKING AWAY ALMOST ALL THE FEATS AND SPELLS!" This is the Character Origins playtest document. Nothing that is not relevant to character generation is presented here. The very short lists of spells and the low number of low-level feats are because this document isn't about spells or feats, it's about character generation. it gives you enough to evaluate the new way to generate a first-level character. You do not need the entire PHB grimoire and the entire PHB feats list to create a first-level character. Those things are not gone, they're simply not relevant to this one document's limited scope.
6.) "GETTING RID OF MY FAVORITE SUBRACE!" Subraces are not gone. Well, they are gone, but that's because the things subraces used to do have been folded into a choice one makes within a base species. You select a Legacy/Lineage for elves, ardlings, tieflings, and gnomes, with that legacy giving you back everything your subspecies used to and in many cases a little more. You still select a draconic ancestry for dragonborn. Dwarves do not select a Legacy, but that's because the best traits of Mountain dwarf and Hill dwarf were folded into the one singular 'Dwarf' species, which is arguably one of the most powerful options in the document.
7.) GETTING RID OF MY HALF-ELVES/HALF-ORCS!" Actually, yes. yes they are. Half-elves and half-orcs do not have their own unique stat blocks anymore. Instead, the playtest document instructs players that they are allowed to mate any two humanoid species together and produce a Half X/Half Y, utilizing the mechanical abilities of one of the two parent species but mingling their appearance as they like. This is something people have been doing in D&D for longer than 5e's been a thing. "Half-orcs" can easily be recreated by using the Orc stat block, taking Savage Attacker in your background, and making your orc slimmer and less green. Similarly, half-elves are 'Elves, but without trance and with a bunch of skill proficiencies'. Play Human with Magic Initiate and pick fey-y spells to get a more human-leaning half-elf, or pick Elf and take one of the crafty/skill-y feats to get a more elf-leanming half-elf. In either case, this is a loss, but not one that really feels significant given the hugely expanded scope of character generation.
8.) "GETTING RID OF COOL RIBBON BACKGROUND FEATURES!" Name me one time someone in your game used their 2014-style Background Feature in a way that significantly improved a session or helped the story. One time. I'll wait. . .. ...nothing? Yeah, me neither. Most 'Background Features', especially in the PHB - and remember, this document concerns itself solely with PHB content - are things any self-respecting DM would just let you do because you have [X] background. Entertainers being able to sing for their supper? Roll a music check, see how much supper you get. Acolytes being able to shelter in temples? They're temples, it's a pretty terrible temple that turns away a faithful servant in need. Sages being able to look stuff up? Holy hell, if you tell your party they can't try and research stuff because none of them are Sages, I have no idea how anything happens at your table. I have yet to meet the DM that doesn't leap at the chance to dump world lore into players' laps through the paper-thin guise of "this is what that 8 on your Intelligence check found..."
* * *
Anyways. That should do for now. More to be added when I spot new worrying trends people are panicking over with the new One D&D announcement and playtest material. Just remember - don't panic. Whatever the issue is, I guarantee it's not that bad. And if it is? This is the start of an eighteen-month playtest cycle. Stuff is gonna change. Embrace it, enjoy it. This is an exciting time to be a D&D nerd.
I don't think they're taking all cool ribbon abilities away, but to be fair I have used my 2014 Background Ribbon Ability in a very significant way. As a Noble I was able to swing a lot of clout in our Waterdeep based game. This was a lot due to the DM, and with DM cooperation the new Noble could do the same thing, but still it is an example. Sorry to rain on your example!
As for everything else, you're right, I do see people panicking about stuff before even reading it carefully.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Another good reminder is that this is literally day 1 of what is going to be at least a year long process. It's the first run and based on community feedback, a lot of things are probably going to change over time. There are more systems that will be presented to us as well over the next 14-18 months or so.
So stay calm, if you lose it all on day 1 like some have, then you won't have the energy to lose it when it might be really important. Don't use up all your smites now.
I absolutely love basically all of the changes they present in this document. It's basically all that I have been asking for and homebrewing for years. I recently started drifting away from playing 5e towards 4e and Pathfinder 2e, but this document just renewed my interest in 5e. If the rest of the Playtest documents are as high quality as this one, I will be overwhelmingly happy with 2024's version of 5e.
To see people freak out over little things (most of which just show that they didn't actually read the entire thing) is a bit disheartening, but this UA is really promising. Now, let's hope it doesn't get bogged down by complainers like the D&D Next Playtest was and actually makes it to print in this form.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Outlander's wanderer feature has been a lifesaver in our Dark Sun campaign. I've got a great DM who allows a lot of RP-based shenanigans and homebrew, but in a survival-heavy setting, that background really is key. Having that line of text to point to is really helpful, especially for new players and new DMs, and I'm really going to regret it if they go away entirely. Maybe, since feats are going to be the new Done Thing, some of them can become new feats.
It's kind of amazing just how many people are losing their collective heads over...well...nothing, really. I kind of have to wonder, how many people have actually *read* the document before they decided to start running their mouth over something either inconsequential or that they're just plain *incorrect* about, y'know?
9) "IT IS SO STUPID THAT EVERY GUARD SPEAKS DWARVISH" No, no they don't! Default background building is fully modular now. Much better than before. The given backgrounds are examples, and they even write, you can swap out whatever you want.
I agree and endorse what Yurei says here aside from the ardlings. They're obviously just a redesign of aasimar "but they're furries now." They decided to try adding aasimar to the playtest material, as furries.
I agree and endorse what Yurei says here aside from the ardlings. They're obviously just a redesign of aasimar "but they're furries now." They decided to try adding aasimar to the playtest material, as furries.
They're only "but furries now" for people who don't pay attention.
There is droves of inspiration from Egyptian gods, Judeo-Christian lore, and even previous D&D material (Archons) supporting celestial beast-like folk.
Just because you don't like furries doesn't mean the race is just "aasimars but now furries".
There is absolutely nothing in that description vaguely resembling anything from those mythological sources. It's the same way they've been describing aasimar for decades, but they're furries now.
Have aasimar existed for 'decades'? I thought the species was invented wholesale in the 2014 DMG as a one-off example riff of tiffles that people glommed onto.
Do also note: this is a playtest document. The text is mostly focused on mechanical systems with minimal focus given to lore/fluff because the lore/fluff is not what is being playtested. This is not a case of the playerbase spot-checking a possible final draft. This is UA - quick and dirty get-it-out-there stuff to get a taste test from the players and try and spot issues before revising the rules. Nothing in this document is set in stone. Hell, it's barely set in mud. D&D 2024 RED is still most of two years away, there will be time for Wizards to adjust course if something truly sits rotten with the playerbase.
Have aasimar existed for 'decades'? I thought the species was invented wholesale in the 2014 DMG as a one-off example riff of tiffles that people glommed onto.
Aasimar and tieflings were created at the same time and introduced in Planescape during 2e. They were always presented together until 4e when tieflings became a core race and aasimar didn't.
Have aasimar existed for 'decades'? I thought the species was invented wholesale in the 2014 DMG as a one-off example riff of tiffles that people glommed onto.
Yes, they have. They weren't ever featured in the PHB of previous editions but neither were tieflings until 4e. Aasimar were first introduced in 2e Planescape material in 1995 as a celestial counterpart to tieflings which were introduced about one year earlier (1994), also in Planescape. Both races were introduced as playable races in the Forgotten Realms setting for 3e with level adjustments because they had some more powerful racial features than standard races (iirc they both had a +1 LA, which put them on par with drow). So both of those races have been around for 27 and 28 years, respectively, and they have always been associated with each other. They also both appear (again with +1 LAs) in the Urban Arcana setting book for the D20 Modern system which used a slightly tweaked version of 3.0/3.5 rules for games set in modern "real world" situations.
And I am fully aware that this material is an incomplete draft intended for testing purposes. As I said, I fully agree with just about everything else you said in your OP here. I also maintain that the ardling race presented in it is, from a design perspective, literally just an updated rework of aasimar but with furry aesthetics.
Thank, you. May I add, Instead of complaining; playtest it. Don't like it? Send them feedback. Do Like it? Send them feedback. Won't try it? Send them that feedback.
I really like the direction. I made an Ardling yesterday. It was extremely clunky because A) I have been using DND Beyond exclusively since July last year B) it's a new way of doing things. I'm pretty happy with my results.
Honestly, I was worried that Racial distinctions were going to go away after the break from lore in Multiverse. But they leaned into the distinctions.
I am excited by the use of inspiration as a player run resource. I've noticed a big surge in the use of advantage/disadvantage in books and 3rd party stuff recently making inspiration useful. Cool concepts. We'll see what makes the books.
We're trying out the inspiration and Crit rules tonight to see how it plays at one of our tables. If we like it we may adopt it. If not, we'll go back to the way it was.
There is absolutely nothing in that description vaguely resembling anything from those mythological sources.
*sigh*
First, something slightly relevant from the wikipedia article on Seraphim. The name "Seraphim" does not come from charity only, but from the excess of charity, expressed by the word ardor or fire. Ardor? Aardling? Seems plausible.
Second, "The Cherubim, later shortened to Cherub, is the lowest in rank among the four. The Bible describes these beings as animal-human hybrids, tasked with guarding the garden of Eden against humankind."
Third, "In the Book of Ezekiel, the prophet’s vision depicts them as having four faces: that of a lion, an ox, an eagle, and a human. They have straight legs, four wings, and bull hooves for feet that gleam like polished brass. One set of wings covers their body, and the other is used for flight."
Fourth, "There were many animal gods in ancient Egypt, and often, the only thing they had in common was their appearance. Some were protective, some were harmful, but most of them were both at the same time.
The Greek Historian Herodotus was the first Westerner to write about the animal gods of Egypt: Anbuis (Jackal), Apis (Bull), Apophis (Serpent), Bastet (Cat), Horus (Falcon), Khepri (Scarab), Sekhmet (Lioness), Sobek (Crocodile), Hathor, Isis, Nut, and Bat (depicted with cow’s features), Amun (Ram), Thoth and Khonsu (depicted as a Dog headed baboon), Hequet (depicted as a frog-headed woman), Geb (who took goose form), Osiris and Ra (closely linked to Herons, viewed as sacred birds of sun and rebirth), Set (turned into a hippo in his fight with Horus)(equally set took the form of a pig and blinded Horus).
Fifth, the Hindu pantheon contains a wide range of gods and deities with varying qualities and distinguishing characteristics. Some deities have multiple hands, others have multiple wives, and a few are even half-human, half-animal beings. Equally many also have vahanas (animal forms they take): Nandi (bull), Gadura (birds), Hanuman (monkey), Kamadhenu (Cow), Narasimha (lion), Hayagriva (horse), Lakshmi (owl), Sheetala (donkey), and most widely known Ganesha (elephant, but also has the vahana of a mouse).
Sixth, Archons, from the Forgotten Realms:
Hound Archons: Heavily muscled, disciplined soldiers that sometimes took the form of a wolf or dog on the Material Plane. These were the first "true" archons and served as soldiers and servants. Warden Archons: These bear-like archons were the watchmen and observers of their plane. Tome Archons: Tome archons were very tall, winged humanoids. By some accounts of mortals, tome archons had the heads of hawks, or, more rarely, of owls. Other scholars described each tome archon as having a unique appearance, generally androgynous but with subtle masculine or feminine traits.
I believe this is a substantial enough list of lore to show that Aardlings are not just "Aasimar but furry" but a gathering of a great deal of real world and existing D&D lore to make a new spin on an old take. With specific examples of almost every listed Aardling composition. I refute your statement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1.) "REPLACING ALL SPELLCASTERS' SPELL LISTS WITH THREE GENERIC AWFUL SPELL LISTS INSTEAD!"
The Arcane, Divine, and Primal spell lists are in addition to existing class spell lists, not a replacement for existing class spell lists. They exist as broad categorizations that are useful to specific subclasses and specific feats/abilities, such as Magic Initiate. They are not intended to replace class spell lists and would do a damn poor job of it as a number of existing classes mix spells from multiple lists. Your wizard will still by the wizziest wizzerd. Don't panic.
2.) "REPLACING MY AASIMAR WITH THESE WEIRD CREEPY ANIMAL CROSSING WANNABES!"
Aasimar have never been a PHB species. The very first aasimar was an example of how to homebrew a new species by altering an existing species' statblock in the DMG, which people latched onto because they wanted Majestic Golden Angel People to combat the thronging legions of Saucy Crimson Devil People. "Official" aasimar came later in Volo's Guide to DM Headaches, and then in M3. Aasimar live in M3, not in the PHB. They're not being replaced any more than any other non-PHB species is; this document is concerned solely with nuPHB stuff, so of course aasimar didn't bear mentioning.
3.) "REMOVING CRITICAL HITS FROM D&D FOREVAR!"
The playtest document is experimenting with removing crits from monsters, and turning critical hits into a player-only ability. Jeremy Crawford laid out, in crystal clear unmistakable terms, that this is an experiment. The playtest document is just that, and if there's enough outrage then they'll back off and reinstate monster crits. But frankly, the dev team's justification for removing monster crits is actually very good. It allows the team more freedom to design cool monsters and has a nontrivial impact on encounter balancing. Challenge Rating will work better when monsters can't randomly deal double damage for no reason, and treating Recharge as the monster-only counterpart to the PCs' ability to Crit is a really cool dynamic. try it out, you may find yourself agreeing with them.
4.) "RUINING ABILITY CHECKS AND SAVING THROWS WITH THIS 'd20 TEST' CRAP!"
"d20 Test" is simply a easy and convenient shorthand for 'a roll which involves the d20." Nothing is actually changing about attack rolls, ability checks, or saving throws, other than the fact that the Internet [REDACTED] couldn't grasp "Nat 1s/20s only do special things on attack rolls" managed to get that rule changed. Odds are quite good that the only thing the d20 Test rules actually changed was how you were (incorrectly) already playing anyways.
5.) "TAKING AWAY ALMOST ALL THE FEATS AND SPELLS!"
This is the Character Origins playtest document. Nothing that is not relevant to character generation is presented here. The very short lists of spells and the low number of low-level feats are because this document isn't about spells or feats, it's about character generation. it gives you enough to evaluate the new way to generate a first-level character. You do not need the entire PHB grimoire and the entire PHB feats list to create a first-level character. Those things are not gone, they're simply not relevant to this one document's limited scope.
6.) "GETTING RID OF MY FAVORITE SUBRACE!"
Subraces are not gone. Well, they are gone, but that's because the things subraces used to do have been folded into a choice one makes within a base species. You select a Legacy/Lineage for elves, ardlings, tieflings, and gnomes, with that legacy giving you back everything your subspecies used to and in many cases a little more. You still select a draconic ancestry for dragonborn. Dwarves do not select a Legacy, but that's because the best traits of Mountain dwarf and Hill dwarf were folded into the one singular 'Dwarf' species, which is arguably one of the most powerful options in the document.
7.) GETTING RID OF MY HALF-ELVES/HALF-ORCS!"
Actually, yes. yes they are. Half-elves and half-orcs do not have their own unique stat blocks anymore. Instead, the playtest document instructs players that they are allowed to mate any two humanoid species together and produce a Half X/Half Y, utilizing the mechanical abilities of one of the two parent species but mingling their appearance as they like. This is something people have been doing in D&D for longer than 5e's been a thing. "Half-orcs" can easily be recreated by using the Orc stat block, taking Savage Attacker in your background, and making your orc slimmer and less green. Similarly, half-elves are 'Elves, but without trance and with a bunch of skill proficiencies'. Play Human with Magic Initiate and pick fey-y spells to get a more human-leaning half-elf, or pick Elf and take one of the crafty/skill-y feats to get a more elf-leanming half-elf. In either case, this is a loss, but not one that really feels significant given the hugely expanded scope of character generation.
8.) "GETTING RID OF COOL RIBBON BACKGROUND FEATURES!"
Name me one time someone in your game used their 2014-style Background Feature in a way that significantly improved a session or helped the story. One time. I'll wait.
.
..
...nothing? Yeah, me neither. Most 'Background Features', especially in the PHB - and remember, this document concerns itself solely with PHB content - are things any self-respecting DM would just let you do because you have [X] background. Entertainers being able to sing for their supper? Roll a music check, see how much supper you get. Acolytes being able to shelter in temples? They're temples, it's a pretty terrible temple that turns away a faithful servant in need. Sages being able to look stuff up? Holy hell, if you tell your party they can't try and research stuff because none of them are Sages, I have no idea how anything happens at your table. I have yet to meet the DM that doesn't leap at the chance to dump world lore into players' laps through the paper-thin guise of "this is what that 8 on your Intelligence check found..."
* * *
Anyways. That should do for now. More to be added when I spot new worrying trends people are panicking over with the new One D&D announcement and playtest material. Just remember - don't panic. Whatever the issue is, I guarantee it's not that bad. And if it is? This is the start of an eighteen-month playtest cycle. Stuff is gonna change. Embrace it, enjoy it. This is an exciting time to be a D&D nerd.
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't think they're taking all cool ribbon abilities away, but to be fair I have used my 2014 Background Ribbon Ability in a very significant way. As a Noble I was able to swing a lot of clout in our Waterdeep based game. This was a lot due to the DM, and with DM cooperation the new Noble could do the same thing, but still it is an example. Sorry to rain on your example!
As for everything else, you're right, I do see people panicking about stuff before even reading it carefully.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
And to be fair, with the digital toolset they're working on, it's really, REALLY important to get it ironed out before the programming is done.
You have me excited to read the document. I honestly expect the framework to stay the same, even if the player options don't.
Another good reminder is that this is literally day 1 of what is going to be at least a year long process. It's the first run and based on community feedback, a lot of things are probably going to change over time. There are more systems that will be presented to us as well over the next 14-18 months or so.
So stay calm, if you lose it all on day 1 like some have, then you won't have the energy to lose it when it might be really important. Don't use up all your smites now.
I absolutely love basically all of the changes they present in this document. It's basically all that I have been asking for and homebrewing for years. I recently started drifting away from playing 5e towards 4e and Pathfinder 2e, but this document just renewed my interest in 5e. If the rest of the Playtest documents are as high quality as this one, I will be overwhelmingly happy with 2024's version of 5e.
To see people freak out over little things (most of which just show that they didn't actually read the entire thing) is a bit disheartening, but this UA is really promising. Now, let's hope it doesn't get bogged down by complainers like the D&D Next Playtest was and actually makes it to print in this form.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
What even is this about?
Outlander's wanderer feature has been a lifesaver in our Dark Sun campaign. I've got a great DM who allows a lot of RP-based shenanigans and homebrew, but in a survival-heavy setting, that background really is key. Having that line of text to point to is really helpful, especially for new players and new DMs, and I'm really going to regret it if they go away entirely. Maybe, since feats are going to be the new Done Thing, some of them can become new feats.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
It's kind of amazing just how many people are losing their collective heads over...well...nothing, really. I kind of have to wonder, how many people have actually *read* the document before they decided to start running their mouth over something either inconsequential or that they're just plain *incorrect* about, y'know?
Thanks, Yurei!
Want to add to the list:
9) "IT IS SO STUPID THAT EVERY GUARD SPEAKS DWARVISH"
No, no they don't! Default background building is fully modular now. Much better than before. The given backgrounds are examples, and they even write, you can swap out whatever you want.
I agree and endorse what Yurei says here aside from the ardlings. They're obviously just a redesign of aasimar "but they're furries now." They decided to try adding aasimar to the playtest material, as furries.
They're only "but furries now" for people who don't pay attention.
There is droves of inspiration from Egyptian gods, Judeo-Christian lore, and even previous D&D material (Archons) supporting celestial beast-like folk.
Just because you don't like furries doesn't mean the race is just "aasimars but now furries".
There is absolutely nothing in that description vaguely resembling anything from those mythological sources. It's the same way they've been describing aasimar for decades, but they're furries now.
Have aasimar existed for 'decades'? I thought the species was invented wholesale in the 2014 DMG as a one-off example riff of tiffles that people glommed onto.
Do also note: this is a playtest document. The text is mostly focused on mechanical systems with minimal focus given to lore/fluff because the lore/fluff is not what is being playtested. This is not a case of the playerbase spot-checking a possible final draft. This is UA - quick and dirty get-it-out-there stuff to get a taste test from the players and try and spot issues before revising the rules. Nothing in this document is set in stone. Hell, it's barely set in mud. D&D 2024 RED is still most of two years away, there will be time for Wizards to adjust course if something truly sits rotten with the playerbase.
Please do not contact or message me.
Aasimar first appeared im 1995 in the Planescape setting for AD&D 2E
Aasimar and tieflings were created at the same time and introduced in Planescape during 2e. They were always presented together until 4e when tieflings became a core race and aasimar didn't.
Yes, they have. They weren't ever featured in the PHB of previous editions but neither were tieflings until 4e. Aasimar were first introduced in 2e Planescape material in 1995 as a celestial counterpart to tieflings which were introduced about one year earlier (1994), also in Planescape. Both races were introduced as playable races in the Forgotten Realms setting for 3e with level adjustments because they had some more powerful racial features than standard races (iirc they both had a +1 LA, which put them on par with drow). So both of those races have been around for 27 and 28 years, respectively, and they have always been associated with each other. They also both appear (again with +1 LAs) in the Urban Arcana setting book for the D20 Modern system which used a slightly tweaked version of 3.0/3.5 rules for games set in modern "real world" situations.
And I am fully aware that this material is an incomplete draft intended for testing purposes. As I said, I fully agree with just about everything else you said in your OP here. I also maintain that the ardling race presented in it is, from a design perspective, literally just an updated rework of aasimar but with furry aesthetics.
Doesn't matter if I agree with the point or not.
I'm here for the Yurei textwalls!
Thank, you. May I add, Instead of complaining; playtest it. Don't like it? Send them feedback. Do Like it? Send them feedback. Won't try it? Send them that feedback.
I really like the direction. I made an Ardling yesterday. It was extremely clunky because A) I have been using DND Beyond exclusively since July last year B) it's a new way of doing things. I'm pretty happy with my results.
Honestly, I was worried that Racial distinctions were going to go away after the break from lore in Multiverse. But they leaned into the distinctions.
I am excited by the use of inspiration as a player run resource. I've noticed a big surge in the use of advantage/disadvantage in books and 3rd party stuff recently making inspiration useful. Cool concepts. We'll see what makes the books.
We're trying out the inspiration and Crit rules tonight to see how it plays at one of our tables. If we like it we may adopt it. If not, we'll go back to the way it was.
*sigh*
First, something slightly relevant from the wikipedia article on Seraphim. The name "Seraphim" does not come from charity only, but from the excess of charity, expressed by the word ardor or fire. Ardor? Aardling? Seems plausible.
Second, "The Cherubim, later shortened to Cherub, is the lowest in rank among the four. The Bible describes these beings as animal-human hybrids, tasked with guarding the garden of Eden against humankind."
Third, "In the Book of Ezekiel, the prophet’s vision depicts them as having four faces: that of a lion, an ox, an eagle, and a human. They have straight legs, four wings, and bull hooves for feet that gleam like polished brass. One set of wings covers their body, and the other is used for flight."
Fourth, "There were many animal gods in ancient Egypt, and often, the only thing they had in common was their appearance. Some were protective, some were harmful, but most of them were both at the same time.
The Greek Historian Herodotus was the first Westerner to write about the animal gods of Egypt: Anbuis (Jackal), Apis (Bull), Apophis (Serpent), Bastet (Cat), Horus (Falcon), Khepri (Scarab), Sekhmet (Lioness), Sobek (Crocodile), Hathor, Isis, Nut, and Bat (depicted with cow’s features), Amun (Ram), Thoth and Khonsu (depicted as a Dog headed baboon), Hequet (depicted as a frog-headed woman), Geb (who took goose form), Osiris and Ra (closely linked to Herons, viewed as sacred birds of sun and rebirth), Set (turned into a hippo in his fight with Horus)(equally set took the form of a pig and blinded Horus).
Fifth, the Hindu pantheon contains a wide range of gods and deities with varying qualities and distinguishing characteristics. Some deities have multiple hands, others have multiple wives, and a few are even half-human, half-animal beings. Equally many also have vahanas (animal forms they take): Nandi (bull), Gadura (birds), Hanuman (monkey), Kamadhenu (Cow), Narasimha (lion), Hayagriva (horse), Lakshmi (owl), Sheetala (donkey), and most widely known Ganesha (elephant, but also has the vahana of a mouse).
Sixth, Archons, from the Forgotten Realms:
Hound Archons: Heavily muscled, disciplined soldiers that sometimes took the form of a wolf or dog on the Material Plane. These were the first "true" archons and served as soldiers and servants.
Warden Archons: These bear-like archons were the watchmen and observers of their plane.
Tome Archons: Tome archons were very tall, winged humanoids. By some accounts of mortals, tome archons had the heads of hawks, or, more rarely, of owls. Other scholars described each tome archon as having a unique appearance, generally androgynous but with subtle masculine or feminine traits.
I believe this is a substantial enough list of lore to show that Aardlings are not just "Aasimar but furry" but a gathering of a great deal of real world and existing D&D lore to make a new spin on an old take. With specific examples of almost every listed Aardling composition. I refute your statement.