Way back in the 1st and (3rd?) playtests were the Ardling species.
IMO: there should be a Primal version (druid cantrips, keen senses replaced with a choice between Darkvision, Perception, Nature, or Survival), and a Mundane version (Darkvision instead of cantrips; but otherwise the same skill choice as the Primal version).
It seems like a non-runner ground based Ardling should be a thing as well. Something more like Pachyderms (and maybe Turtles, even though you can just be a Tortle instead; sort of the same with the Loxodon ; but I'm thinking something that fits more specifically into the umbrella of Ardlings), where their feature is based around a thick hide.
I'm also musing about a set of Species based Feats (comparable to things like the racial feats that provide dragon hide, dragon claws, and dragon wings, but keyed to which type of Ardling you are; for example: flyers could get wings ... but other Ardlings couldn't).
Ardlings have been shelved in any case. And I’m not sure how you get a Primal analog to Ardlings and Tieflings, given that the idea behind those two is the descendants of those whose bloodline was influenced by power from the Upper and Lower Planes, respectively. We’ve already got some subraces that interact with nature, as well as Firbolgs. So the general nature theme is already covered.
That's unfortunate. They addressed a bit of a gap in the species roster (not their celestial nature, but the things I mention below)
And I’m not sure how you get a Primal analog to Ardlings and Tieflings, given that the idea behind those two is the descendants of those whose bloodline was influenced by power from the Upper and Lower Planes, respectively.
First, the form of the Ardling is an uplifted animal. This would cover the generic "beastman" that some settings/story-worlds/games have. Perhaps most appropriately for the Mundane one. Generic beastmen could be based on the Ardling, and the customization choices they get to fit to a particular animal type. Then the other more specific anthromorphic animal species would be for those species that are more specialized.
For the "upper and lower planes" -- what about the outer planes that are neither upper nor lower? There's 3 of them. What beings fit the Aasimar/Tiefling, but come from those planes? Admittedly, Mechanus probably isn't appropriate, but I can see two good reasons for the "Outlands" and "Limbo" to have Ardling-like anthromorphic animals.
Limbo: some of those settings with "beastman" associate them with being animals who were warped by chaos. Or the way some people associate forces of nature with chaos. Outlands: being the place associated with true neutrality, it's also associated with old-school-druids and natural animals. Both of which are fits for Primal magic and beasty-beings.
We’ve already got some subraces that interact with nature, as well as Firbolgs. So the general nature theme is already covered.
Are they anthromophic animals? Firbolgs certainly aren't. So they're not the same niche. IMO, Firbolgs, being a sort of Giant-kin, are related more to the natural energies/elements (the same way that Giants are), than they are specifically an embodiment of anthromorphic plants or anthromorphic animals.
1e Orcs were, but D&D Orcs have long since gravitated away from being animal-faced humanoids (the 1e MM picture is pig-faced, but B/X description is not porcine specific: "Orcs are ugly human-like creatures who look like a combination of animal and man" with no mention of a specific animal type). Which leaves an open spot. One that can easily be filled by the mundane Ardling.
Limbo already has the Githzerai for player race inhabitants.
Regarding beastkin types; setting aside the dozen-odd particular examples we already have, there’s Shifters for some of the more general beast/human crossover.
Limbo already has the Githzerai for player race inhabitants.
They aren't native to Limbo, and they're not really the same grain as Aasimar and Tieflings. They're mortals who happen to be living in Limbo, and insulate themselves from its chaos, not descended from beings native to that plane.
Regarding beastkin types; setting aside the dozen-odd particular examples we already have
I already addressed those. Those are specialized species, not a generic template. The Ardling was a nice nod to that template for a generic one.
, there’s Shifters for some of the more general beast/human crossover.
Which aren't geared around being a static beast form. Some of the sub-abilities of their shifting ability might fit, but you'd be replacing the utility of the flexibility between all of those forms with ... nothing. You'd get one of them, and lose the flexibility part with no compensation. A species built around a specific beast template makes far more sense than nerfing a shifter.
Limbo already has the Githzerai for player race inhabitants.
They aren't native to Limbo, and they're not really the same grain as Aasimar and Tieflings. They're mortals who happen to be living in Limbo, and insulate themselves from its chaos, not descended from beings native to that plane.
Regarding beastkin types; setting aside the dozen-odd particular examples we already have
I already addressed those. Those are specialized species, not a generic template. The Ardling was a nice nod to that template for a generic one.
, there’s Shifters for some of the more general beast/human crossover.
Which aren't geared around being a static beast form. Some of the sub-abilities of their shifting ability might fit, but you'd be replacing the utility of the flexibility between all of those forms with ... nothing. You'd get one of them, and lose the flexibility part with no compensation. A species built around a specific beast template makes far more sense than nerfing a shifter.
Shifters don’t get to choose between all four options in play; you pick a subrace that plays into one general beast vibe or another, and those categories are already broad. So I’m not seeing what the loss is to just using them as-is for your generic beastfolk type.
Shifters aren't really anthropomorphic though, they're more like savage hairy humans with funky teeth/eyes. Someone who wants to be, say, a wolfman or a bearman won't really get that from a Shifter the way they would have from an Ardling.
I voted for them to stick around in core but their annoying 80% threshold meant they were doomed from the outset, so we're going to have to wait for a splat of some kind.
I was disappointed to lose them too, but if the only thing with Shifters is cosmetic, then it's not really an issue imo, particularly if we're talking original settings rather than official.
IMO WotC should've made them a catch-all beastkin species, like a better, more customizable Eberron shifters, in order to avoid having to make a separate species for every animal. Like, there's cat people, lizard people, turtle people, hippopotamus people, but what about fox people, wolf people, kangaroo people, minnow people? You'd have to write an entire sourcebook dedicated to just listing them all, and many of them would repeat features like claws, thick hide, or keen senses.
We already have a celestial option, that's aasimar. Better salvage them than just create a new one to supplant the poor forgotten aasimar.
Aasimar has some baggage that not everyone wants, but there's plenty who would do like it and would not be impressed if it was cut out. We do already have fish people, btw, though they probably need a little tuning.
The problem with ardlings is that the people who want beastfolk mostly don't care about an upper plane lineage, and the people who want an upper plane lineage mostly don't care about beastfolk. Honestly, I'd be tempted by just adding a Planetouched modifier that can be applied to any other species.
The problem with ardlings is that the people who want beastfolk mostly don't care about an upper plane lineage, and the people who want an upper plane lineage mostly don't care about beastfolk. Honestly, I'd be tempted by just adding a Planetouched modifier that can be applied to any other species.
Vary valid point. They got rid of half-races (good decision IMO) only to offer us another half-race.
The problem with ardlings is that the people who want beastfolk mostly don't care about an upper plane lineage, and the people who want an upper plane lineage mostly don't care about beastfolk. Honestly, I'd be tempted by just adding a Planetouched modifier that can be applied to any other species.
Vary valid point. They got rid of half-races (good decision IMO) only to offer us another half-race.
They're no more a half-race than Tieflings are. Plus, I was frankly disappointed at the loss of of half-elves; had a good vibe to them with the features. Half-orc has become pretty superfluous now that they've fully normalized orcs as player races, though.
They're no more a half-race than Tieflings are. Plus, I was frankly disappointed at the loss of of half-elves; had a good vibe to them with the features. Half-orc has become pretty superfluous now that they've fully normalized orcs as player races, though.
Well, tieflings are as complete as the players can get to playing fiends, because actual fiends are out of question. And ardlings were half-celestial (an option that players can have) and half beast (also something that players can have).
Never liked half-races because it felt like a half-measure. If humans and elves can breed, and humans and orcs can breed, what about elforcs? And the rest? Half-halflings? Dworcs? Gnogres? Centauracokra? That way lies madness, and I'd rather prefer that this door stayed shut. And yes, I think Warcraft really had an impact on fantasy genre "normalizing" orcs, and I like it. Fiends might be inherently evil because of their supernatural origin, but living sentient beings should not be.
IMO WotC should've made them a catch-all beastkin species, like a better, more customizable Eberron shifters, in order to avoid having to make a separate species for every animal. Like, there's cat people, lizard people, turtle people, hippopotamus people, but what about fox people, wolf people, kangaroo people, minnow people? You'd have to write an entire sourcebook dedicated to just listing them all, and many of them would repeat features like claws, thick hide, or keen senses.
We already have a celestial option, that's aasimar. Better salvage them than just create a new one to supplant the poor forgotten aasimar.
Meanwhile, this is exactly why I don't want a generic beastfolk species. I don't want Wizards to stop printing stuff for Lizardfolk, Tortles, Yuan-Ti, Kenku, etc. just because there's a generic option available. A generic option would need to be incredibly robust to accommodate every animal with the same level of detail and unique flavor each animal species demands. At that point, they may as well just ditch species entirely in favor of a fully customizable "build your species" system.
As-is the difference between playing a Lizardfolk, a Yuan-Ti, an Aarakocra, and a Tabaxi is enormous compared to, say, playing one of the billion flavors of elf. I just don't see a generic beastfolk option offering the same huge variety in playstyle.
They're no more a half-race than Tieflings are. Plus, I was frankly disappointed at the loss of of half-elves; had a good vibe to them with the features. Half-orc has become pretty superfluous now that they've fully normalized orcs as player races, though.
Well, tieflings are as complete as the players can get to playing fiends, because actual fiends are out of question. And ardlings were half-celestial (an option that players can have) and half beast (also something that players can have).
Never liked half-races because it felt like a half-measure. If humans and elves can breed, and humans and orcs can breed, what about elforcs? And the rest? Half-halflings? Dworcs? Gnogres? Centauracokra? That way lies madness, and I'd rather prefer that this door stayed shut. And yes, I think Warcraft really had an impact on fantasy genre "normalizing" orcs, and I like it. Fiends might be inherently evil because of their supernatural origin, but living sentient beings should not be.
I mean, I'm not saying the normalization of orcs is a bad thing, just describing the transition and why it makes the half orc superfluous. Also, the last they said on mixed parentages was that the pairing is subject to DM approval, average the lifespans, and you pick one race to get your hard traits from. Which is okay, but like I said half elves really captured that "neither one nor the other" vibe with their design. Just seems like a waste to drop them.
I’m pretty sure Aasimar will be in the 2024 PHB. It’s been a while, but I remember them saying that. As for beast folk I feel like the PHB never gives that option. Since the game is backwards compatible you will have the beast folk from MoM, Aarocokra, Haregon, Kenku, Lizardfolk, Minotaur, Tabaxi, and Tortle available until they make a new Volo’s.
Meanwhile, this is exactly why I don't want a generic beastfolk species. I don't want Wizards to stop printing stuff for Lizardfolk, Tortles, Yuan-Ti, Kenku, etc. just because there's a generic option available. A generic option would need to be incredibly robust to accommodate every animal with the same level of detail and unique flavor each animal species demands. At that point, they may as well just ditch species entirely in favor of a fully customizable "build your species" system.
As-is the difference between playing a Lizardfolk, a Yuan-Ti, an Aarakocra, and a Tabaxi is enormous compared to, say, playing one of the billion flavors of elf. I just don't see a generic beastfolk option offering the same huge variety in playstyle.
I agree that the generic beastfolk wouldn't necessarily convey 100% of the nuance of every species, but at least it would provide a framework to play your own kind of fursona. Just make it a combination of options like natural armaments (claws, teeth, horns, scales), senses (darkvision, keen sight, keen smell), movement (climbing, running, prowling, flying, amphibian), and instinct (pack tactics, cunning, ferocious, protective), and a budget to get a collection from these options, with things like flying having a high cost.
The reason why I advocate for a generic beastfolk is because that way most options will at least be accessible. It's been ten years of fifth edition and there's still no wolfmen in the official sourcebooks, or fox people. As for the cultural aspect, well, if humans can have wildly different cultures in different nations, then so can beastkin.
The problem with ardlings is that the people who want beastfolk mostly don't care about an upper plane lineage, and the people who want an upper plane lineage mostly don't care about beastfolk. Honestly, I'd be tempted by just adding a Planetouched modifier that can be applied to any other species.
That's something (one of the few things) I miss about the 3e: the Templates System.
IMO WotC should've made them a catch-all beastkin species, like a better, more customizable Eberron shifters, in order to avoid having to make a separate species for every animal. Like, there's cat people, lizard people, turtle people, hippopotamus people, but what about fox people, wolf people, kangaroo people, minnow people? You'd have to write an entire sourcebook dedicated to just listing them all, and many of them would repeat features like claws, thick hide, or keen senses.
We already have a celestial option, that's aasimar. Better salvage them than just create a new one to supplant the poor forgotten aasimar.
Meanwhile, this is exactly why I don't want a generic beastfolk species. I don't want Wizards to stop printing stuff for Lizardfolk, Tortles, Yuan-Ti, Kenku, etc. just because there's a generic option available. A generic option would need to be incredibly robust to accommodate every animal with the same level of detail and unique flavor each animal species demands. At that point, they may as well just ditch species entirely in favor of a fully customizable "build your species" system.
As-is the difference between playing a Lizardfolk, a Yuan-Ti, an Aarakocra, and a Tabaxi is enormous compared to, say, playing one of the billion flavors of elf. I just don't see a generic beastfolk option offering the same huge variety in playstyle.
It's not an either-or. Look at the Tabaxi and the Leonin. There isn't really anything thematically that couldn't have been covered about the Leonin as a variant species of the Tabaxi, Or even the Elf vs Eladrin vs Shadar-kai.
The existence of a general species (Elf) doesn't have to preclude the existence of the more specialized ones like the Eladrin and Shadar-Kai. Once the specialized species has _mechanics_ that are significantly divergent from the generic case, that's when it gets its own stat-block. But the generic case is still there to cover everything that isn't the specialized one(s).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Way back in the 1st and (3rd?) playtests were the Ardling species.
IMO: there should be a Primal version (druid cantrips, keen senses replaced with a choice between Darkvision, Perception, Nature, or Survival), and a Mundane version (Darkvision instead of cantrips; but otherwise the same skill choice as the Primal version).
It seems like a non-runner ground based Ardling should be a thing as well. Something more like Pachyderms (and maybe Turtles, even though you can just be a Tortle instead; sort of the same with the Loxodon ; but I'm thinking something that fits more specifically into the umbrella of Ardlings), where their feature is based around a thick hide.
I'm also musing about a set of Species based Feats (comparable to things like the racial feats that provide dragon hide, dragon claws, and dragon wings, but keyed to which type of Ardling you are; for example: flyers could get wings ... but other Ardlings couldn't).
Ardlings have been shelved in any case. And I’m not sure how you get a Primal analog to Ardlings and Tieflings, given that the idea behind those two is the descendants of those whose bloodline was influenced by power from the Upper and Lower Planes, respectively. We’ve already got some subraces that interact with nature, as well as Firbolgs. So the general nature theme is already covered.
That's unfortunate. They addressed a bit of a gap in the species roster (not their celestial nature, but the things I mention below)
First, the form of the Ardling is an uplifted animal. This would cover the generic "beastman" that some settings/story-worlds/games have. Perhaps most appropriately for the Mundane one. Generic beastmen could be based on the Ardling, and the customization choices they get to fit to a particular animal type. Then the other more specific anthromorphic animal species would be for those species that are more specialized.
For the "upper and lower planes" -- what about the outer planes that are neither upper nor lower? There's 3 of them. What beings fit the Aasimar/Tiefling, but come from those planes? Admittedly, Mechanus probably isn't appropriate, but I can see two good reasons for the "Outlands" and "Limbo" to have Ardling-like anthromorphic animals.
Limbo: some of those settings with "beastman" associate them with being animals who were warped by chaos. Or the way some people associate forces of nature with chaos.
Outlands: being the place associated with true neutrality, it's also associated with old-school-druids and natural animals. Both of which are fits for Primal magic and beasty-beings.
Are they anthromophic animals? Firbolgs certainly aren't. So they're not the same niche. IMO, Firbolgs, being a sort of Giant-kin, are related more to the natural energies/elements (the same way that Giants are), than they are specifically an embodiment of anthromorphic plants or anthromorphic animals.
1e Orcs were, but D&D Orcs have long since gravitated away from being animal-faced humanoids (the 1e MM picture is pig-faced, but B/X description is not porcine specific: "Orcs are ugly human-like creatures who look like a combination of animal and man" with no mention of a specific animal type). Which leaves an open spot. One that can easily be filled by the mundane Ardling.
Limbo already has the Githzerai for player race inhabitants.
Regarding beastkin types; setting aside the dozen-odd particular examples we already have, there’s Shifters for some of the more general beast/human crossover.
They aren't native to Limbo, and they're not really the same grain as Aasimar and Tieflings. They're mortals who happen to be living in Limbo, and insulate themselves from its chaos, not descended from beings native to that plane.
I already addressed those. Those are specialized species, not a generic template. The Ardling was a nice nod to that template for a generic one.
Which aren't geared around being a static beast form. Some of the sub-abilities of their shifting ability might fit, but you'd be replacing the utility of the flexibility between all of those forms with ... nothing. You'd get one of them, and lose the flexibility part with no compensation. A species built around a specific beast template makes far more sense than nerfing a shifter.
Shifters don’t get to choose between all four options in play; you pick a subrace that plays into one general beast vibe or another, and those categories are already broad. So I’m not seeing what the loss is to just using them as-is for your generic beastfolk type.
Shifters aren't really anthropomorphic though, they're more like savage hairy humans with funky teeth/eyes. Someone who wants to be, say, a wolfman or a bearman won't really get that from a Shifter the way they would have from an Ardling.
I voted for them to stick around in core but their annoying 80% threshold meant they were doomed from the outset, so we're going to have to wait for a splat of some kind.
I was disappointed to lose them too, but if the only thing with Shifters is cosmetic, then it's not really an issue imo, particularly if we're talking original settings rather than official.
IMO WotC should've made them a catch-all beastkin species, like a better, more customizable Eberron shifters, in order to avoid having to make a separate species for every animal. Like, there's cat people, lizard people, turtle people, hippopotamus people, but what about fox people, wolf people, kangaroo people, minnow people? You'd have to write an entire sourcebook dedicated to just listing them all, and many of them would repeat features like claws, thick hide, or keen senses.
We already have a celestial option, that's aasimar. Better salvage them than just create a new one to supplant the poor forgotten aasimar.
Aasimar has some baggage that not everyone wants, but there's plenty who would do like it and would not be impressed if it was cut out. We do already have fish people, btw, though they probably need a little tuning.
The problem with ardlings is that the people who want beastfolk mostly don't care about an upper plane lineage, and the people who want an upper plane lineage mostly don't care about beastfolk. Honestly, I'd be tempted by just adding a Planetouched modifier that can be applied to any other species.
Vary valid point. They got rid of half-races (good decision IMO) only to offer us another half-race.
They're no more a half-race than Tieflings are. Plus, I was frankly disappointed at the loss of of half-elves; had a good vibe to them with the features. Half-orc has become pretty superfluous now that they've fully normalized orcs as player races, though.
Well, tieflings are as complete as the players can get to playing fiends, because actual fiends are out of question. And ardlings were half-celestial (an option that players can have) and half beast (also something that players can have).
Never liked half-races because it felt like a half-measure. If humans and elves can breed, and humans and orcs can breed, what about elforcs? And the rest? Half-halflings? Dworcs? Gnogres? Centauracokra? That way lies madness, and I'd rather prefer that this door stayed shut. And yes, I think Warcraft really had an impact on fantasy genre "normalizing" orcs, and I like it. Fiends might be inherently evil because of their supernatural origin, but living sentient beings should not be.
Meanwhile, this is exactly why I don't want a generic beastfolk species. I don't want Wizards to stop printing stuff for Lizardfolk, Tortles, Yuan-Ti, Kenku, etc. just because there's a generic option available. A generic option would need to be incredibly robust to accommodate every animal with the same level of detail and unique flavor each animal species demands. At that point, they may as well just ditch species entirely in favor of a fully customizable "build your species" system.
As-is the difference between playing a Lizardfolk, a Yuan-Ti, an Aarakocra, and a Tabaxi is enormous compared to, say, playing one of the billion flavors of elf. I just don't see a generic beastfolk option offering the same huge variety in playstyle.
I mean, I'm not saying the normalization of orcs is a bad thing, just describing the transition and why it makes the half orc superfluous. Also, the last they said on mixed parentages was that the pairing is subject to DM approval, average the lifespans, and you pick one race to get your hard traits from. Which is okay, but like I said half elves really captured that "neither one nor the other" vibe with their design. Just seems like a waste to drop them.
I’m pretty sure Aasimar will be in the 2024 PHB. It’s been a while, but I remember them saying that. As for beast folk I feel like the PHB never gives that option. Since the game is backwards compatible you will have the beast folk from MoM, Aarocokra, Haregon, Kenku, Lizardfolk, Minotaur, Tabaxi, and Tortle available until they make a new Volo’s.
I agree that the generic beastfolk wouldn't necessarily convey 100% of the nuance of every species, but at least it would provide a framework to play your own kind of fursona. Just make it a combination of options like natural armaments (claws, teeth, horns, scales), senses (darkvision, keen sight, keen smell), movement (climbing, running, prowling, flying, amphibian), and instinct (pack tactics, cunning, ferocious, protective), and a budget to get a collection from these options, with things like flying having a high cost.
The reason why I advocate for a generic beastfolk is because that way most options will at least be accessible. It's been ten years of fifth edition and there's still no wolfmen in the official sourcebooks, or fox people. As for the cultural aspect, well, if humans can have wildly different cultures in different nations, then so can beastkin.
That's something (one of the few things) I miss about the 3e: the Templates System.
It's not an either-or. Look at the Tabaxi and the Leonin. There isn't really anything thematically that couldn't have been covered about the Leonin as a variant species of the Tabaxi, Or even the Elf vs Eladrin vs Shadar-kai.
The existence of a general species (Elf) doesn't have to preclude the existence of the more specialized ones like the Eladrin and Shadar-Kai. Once the specialized species has _mechanics_ that are significantly divergent from the generic case, that's when it gets its own stat-block. But the generic case is still there to cover everything that isn't the specialized one(s).