# Thoughts on the revised Ardling?



## Corinnguard (Dec 7, 2022)

When I first heard about the Ardlings being the Celestial equivalent of the Tieflings in One D&D, I didn't like them because I felt that they were unnecessary because of the Aasimar. We have had the Aasimar since 2e D&D, and all D&D needed to do was to expand their Celestial heritage to include other kinds of celestials such as Archons and Guardinals. I would have been okay if the Ardlings were descendants of the latter.

But after watching a YouTube clip about the revised version of the Ardling, I think WoTC did the right thing by focusing more on their bestial half, and by tying their planar origin to the Beastlands. 

Still what about the anthropomorphic animal races that are playable now in 5e? If and when they are debuted in One D&D, will they still be their own species? Or will they be lumped in with the Ardlings? For instance, a Kenku could be a Raven Ardling. A Loxodon could be an Elephant Ardling. And so forth.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Dec 7, 2022)

If they are the be the generic specie to create your own anthro, I'd prefer if they kept away from any divine source. Not all beastfolk of D&D are related to the Beastland. 

Create a Beastfolk race, let the player decide what type of beast and their origin. If they want to be related to the Beastland, they can take a Feat at lvl 1, or play a divine sorcerer or what-not.


----------



## Mecheon (Dec 7, 2022)

I doubt they’re getting rid of Kenku or Loxodons. Ardlings are just sort of a generic “do what you want” option while the others are specialised. Plus, Ardling not really doing what they do



Tales and Chronicles said:


> Not all beastfolk of D&D are related to the Beastland.



It is a unique niche to them, makes them distinctly D&D, and gives a very boring half of the Planes something to at least do


----------



## Knight_Marshal (Dec 7, 2022)

Most if not all Celestials have dark vision as do a lot of the animals on the lists.

WotC really needs to understand what flying and gliding mean.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 7, 2022)

I freaking love that it allows me to say "ardlings are a race, make it fit this culture they have in my world" the next time someone tries to tell me about their "fursona" & why it needs a totally new & ever expanding OC import culture somewhere to fit in


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 7, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> If they are the be the generic specie to create your own anthro, I'd prefer if they kept away from any divine source. Not all beastfolk of D&D are related to the Beastland.
> 
> Create a Beastfolk race, let the player decide what type of beast and their origin. If they want to be related to the Beastland, they can take a Feat at lvl 1, or play a divine sorcerer or what-not.



Yes! Exactly this!


----------



## ART! (Dec 7, 2022)

The Divine Magic trait ties them to a divine origin, which I dislike. What if in addition to the Animal Ancestry you could _choose_ from two or more origins? Divine could be one, Fey could be another.


----------



## Corinnguard (Dec 7, 2022)

What about a Primal source? I wonder if One D&D's Primal is anyway similar to 4e's Primal power source.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

WotC is trying to work within the lore of the game to build on the history of what has come before, not just give a generic furry option.


----------



## aco175 (Dec 7, 2022)

I still find them silly and think nobody at my table will pick them.  If they are in the new PHB, I likely will have them as an option to play but doubt many if any NPCs will be them.  I hardly have a NPC that is a dragonborn or tiefling.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Dec 7, 2022)

If they want to keep a more magical beast race, they should go easy on the ''divine'' and go with a more generic ''spirit''. The player can then decide if they are from the Beastland, the Feywild or an Hengeyokai , or a druidic-ally awakened-ish beast. 

Forcing that they come from a pretty dull plane from a specific cosmology breaks makes them too dependent on a very precise setting.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

They're no worse than dwarves or drow when it comes to specific origin.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 7, 2022)

Aardlings just seem completely pointless to me. It's like they're trying to do the job of aasimar, shifters, and dedicated beast races all at once. And doing a worse job than any of them.

I'll definitely be banning them in any games I run. Hard to build a half serious looking setting when everyone can be their own super special OC build-a-bear furry.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Aardlings just seem completely pointless to me. It's like they're trying to do the job of aasimar, shifters, and dedicated beast races all at once. And doing a worse job than any of them.
> 
> I'll definitely be banning them in any games I run. Hard to build a half serious looking setting when everyone can be their own super special OC build-a-bear furry.



Or people with pointy ears and night vision, for that matter.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> Or people with pointy ears and night vision, for that matter.



Or people just want to build a consistent setting without every single new shiny which WotC adds in.

Even many official settings have certain things, or lack certain things, which other settings do have.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Or people just want to build a consistent setting without every single new shiny which WotC adds in.
> 
> Even many official settings have certain things, or lack certain things, which other settings do have.



You are of course free to include or exclude any species in your setting, and are free to choose not to include silly nonsense like bearded mole people and a whole species that's pretty and has pointy vampire ears and is young practically forever and doesn't even sleep because meditation is what the cool kids do. :3


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> You are of course free to include or exclude any species in your setting, and are free to choose not to include silly nonsense like bearded mole people and a whole species that's pretty and has pointy vampire ears and is young practically forever and doesn't even sleep because meditation is what the cool kids do. :3



The reason things like elves, dwarves, and haflings are not visually jarring is that they just look like humans, but different. In fact, we've had different sapient species which once existed irl. They looked like humans, but different. Even something as visually different as a lizardfolk looks internally consistent. Just being a reptile which is sapient and bipedal.

I find aardlings particularly problematic at they're just a human body with an animal head glued on. They're more like something Sid from Toy Story would make from spare parts ripped off other toys while bored.

But then again the species in my setting evolved rather than were created by gods. A god could create anything they wanted using magic, and it doesn't matter how it looks. An aardling could therefore be consistent to that settings rules.

I'd even allow an aardling if a player came to me with a backstory which fit the worlds lore. Something like 'a wizard did it' to explain why their human has a crocodiles head would be perfectly reasonable.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 7, 2022)

that flying is just feather fall. Not flight at all.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> The reason things like elves, dwarves, and haflings are not visually jarring is that they just look like humans, but different. In fact, we've had different sapient species which once existed irl. They looked like humans, but different. Even something as visually different as a lizardfolk looks internally consistent. Just being a reptile which is sapient and bipedal.
> 
> I find aardlings particularly problematic at they're just a human body with an animal head glued on. They're more like something Sid from Toy Story would make from spare parts ripped off other toys while bored.
> 
> ...



So, no Rakshasa or sphinxes or fiends in your game then? That's fine too. The point is that it's all silly goofy fun at the end of the day. It's fine if you're using a setting that uses the glued-on head ridges design instead of full mask design, but it's all on the same level of fiction.


----------



## Li Shenron (Dec 7, 2022)

I am ok with having a generic species option for beast-folks. I think this could be used either as effectively one single species with individuals of all types, or as a template for multiple species. However if you choose the latter you have to fill in the blanks for the species stories. For this reason I don't think it can incorporate all the already existing species of anthropomorphic animals.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> So, no Rakshasa or sphinxes or fiends in your game then? That's fine too. The point is that it's all silly goofy fun at the end of the day. It's fine if you're using a setting that uses the glued-on head ridges design instead of full mask design, but it's all on the same level of fiction.



Yep, it also applies to creatures like centaurs and fairies.

The main difference is that aardlings are looking to be a PHB species. And it's a lot harder to restrict PHB species than supplement material.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Yep, it also applies to creatures like centaurs and fairies.
> 
> The main difference is that aardlings are looking to be a PHB species. And it's a lot harder to restrict PHB species than supplement material.



So you just want it removed so you don't have to say No quite as loudly? :/


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> So you just want it removed so you don't have to say No quite as loudly? :/



Mainly because I believe that the PHB should be the basic and core 'boring stuff' from traditional DnD. Stuff which most settings will have. Supplements would then add on things which are much more setting exclusive and in significantly less worlds.

Though I fully accept that view is outdated at this point, and the 'eurocentric generic fantasy' crowd are probably a tiny minority of DnD players these days.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Mainly because I believe that the PHB should be the basic and core 'boring stuff' from traditional DnD. Stuff which most settings will have. Supplements would then add on things which are much more setting exclusive and in significantly less worlds.
> 
> Though I fully accept that view is outdated at this point, and the 'eurocentric generic fantasy' crowd are probably a tiny minority of DnD players these days.



I feel that it's important to include a few less-vanilla species in the main book to assert that D&D isn't just a LotR wannabe game stuck in the 70s. Fantasy enthusiasts have a lot more to choose from these days, and the notion of fantasy is much "louder" than it used to be. I'd say we should include more non-Western stuff but that carries risk.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> WotC is trying to work within the lore of the game to build on the history of what has come before, not just give a generic furry option.



I’m not convinced that’s the case. I suspect they’re trying to do both, which will likely not be satisfying to the people who actually want a furry race.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 7, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> that flying is just feather fall. Not flight at all.



I suspect they want to avoid putting true flight at 1st level in the PHB.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I’m not convinced that’s the case. I suspect they’re trying to do both, which will likely not be satisfying to the people who actually want a furry race.



A straight up natural multi-species furry species would need a lot more new lore to explain how two duck people can make a cat baby.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> A straight up natural multi-species furry species would need a lot more new lore to explain how two duck people can make a cat baby.



I don’t think that holds up in the game where a centaur and an insect-person can make a centaur baby with no explanation. For groups where it’s an issue, they can just say your character’s parents have to be the same type of animal as your character, or just say some variation of “a wizard did it.”


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think that holds up in the game where a centaur and an insect-person can make a centaur baby with no explanation. For groups where it’s an issue, they can just say your character’s parents have to be the same type of animal as your character, or just say some variation of “a wizard did it.”



Those are different species, though, and this is a single species. Divine power seems less absurd than arcane power when it comes to explaining the origin of a people whose forms carry such variation without being more like mongrelfolk.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> Those are different species, though, and this is a single species. Divine power seems less absurd than arcane power when it comes to explaining the origin of a people whose forms carry such variation without being more like mongrelfolk.



Why? Both are equally magic.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Why? Both are equally magic.



There's a bit of difference in scale.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> There's a bit of difference in scale.



Is there? Where is that written?


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Is there? Where is that written?



 What level is the "create magical species" wizard spell?


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> What level is the "create magical species" wizard spell?



Wish? It’s 9th level. What about the Cleric equivalent?


----------



## Scribe (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> A straight up natural multi-species furry species would need a lot more new lore to explain how two duck people can make a cat baby.




Yeah this is just not going to happen in my worlds.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> What level is the "create magical species" wizard spell?



Origin of Species: Achaierai (Ritual).  100 day 11 minute cast time, dc27  & 35-36k platinum  but those could be reduced by extending the time adding casters  engaging in sacrifice & so on.  It's been a few years but I believe that is not specifically a divine _or_ arcane spell & could be either.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 7, 2022)

Scribe said:


> Yeah this is just not going to happen in my worlds.



Same with centaur-thri kreen hybrids in my settings.

Unless the player comes up with a suitable 'a wizard did it' explanation.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Wish? It’s 9th level. What about the Cleric equivalent?



Gods getting bored.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I suspect they want to avoid putting true flight at 1st level in the PHB.



So let it grow in power over levels, but that power should not be associated with "flying".


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> A straight up natural multi-species furry species would need a lot more new lore to explain how two duck people can make a cat baby.



I don't know if I would _need_ such lore, but I would definitely _want_ it. Maybe with illustrations.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> I don't know if I would _need_ such lore, but I would definitely _want_ it. Maybe with illustrations.



What happens in the Demiplane of Duckburg....


----------



## Azzy (Dec 7, 2022)

If you want a celestial species in the PHB, just use the Aasimar (which is much cooler, and if they’re going to put Goliaths in the PHB, why not Aasimar?). 

If you want an anthropomorphic animal species in the PHB (and one that doesn’t step on the toes of existing anthropomorphic animal species—such as tabaxi, loxodons, kenku, etc.), skip the celestial bit altogether and make an anthropomorphic animal species that's more interesting with a stronger, more coherent identity. Take the hengeyokai (from 4e and earlier), for instance. It's a shapeshifting anthropomorphic animal species that has can also assume an animal form or a human form. Bring that back (and even rename it something that’s not culturally-coded to make it setting- and culture-neutral).


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

It wouldn't be unreasonable to make gaurdinal-descended aasimar to close that gap.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 7, 2022)

Azzy said:


> If you want a celestial species in the PHB, just use the Aasimar (which is much cooler, and if they’re going to put Goliaths in the PHB, why not Aasimar?).
> 
> If you want an anthropomorphic animal species in the PHB (and one that doesn’t step on the toes of existing anthropomorphic animal species—such as tabaxi, loxodons, kenku, etc.), skip the celestial bit altogether and make an anthropomorphic animal species that's more interesting with a stronger, more coherent identity. Take the hengeyokai (from 4e and earlier), for instance. It's a shapeshifting anthropomorphic animal species that has can also assume an animal form or a human form. Bring that back (and even rename it something that’s not culturally-coded to make it setting- and culture-neutral).



They clarified with the release of the latest packet that Aasimar are not being replaced, though that doesn't mean they will be in the 2024 PHB. You would just use the existing rules for them.


----------



## Azzy (Dec 7, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> They clarified with the release of the latest packet that Aasimar are not being replaced, though that doesn't mean they will be in the 2024 PHB. You would just use the existing rules for them.



Right. But if they're bringing Goliaths to the PHB, they could easily do the same with Aasimar.


----------



## MockingBird (Dec 7, 2022)

I don't think the Ardling should be a core race. Like it was mentioned already its harder to restrict races in the PHB. I feel the Ardling would fit better in a source book. If we just have to have a celestial, opposite of Tiefling then just make the Aasmier a core race. If Ardling ends up in the PHB it will be banned since it doesn't gel with my world.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 7, 2022)

I wouldn't ban them for my campaign, but I agree that they make more sense in a source book and Aasimar are a much more logical counterpart to Tieflings.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> Gods getting bored.



Equally possible with similarly powerful non-divine entities. We should be comparing like to like; wizards to clerics, gods to Archfey.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 7, 2022)

MockingBird said:


> I don't think the Ardling should be a core race. Like it was mentioned already its harder to restrict races in the PHB. I feel the Ardling would fit better in a source book. If we just have to have a celestial, opposite of Tiefling then just make the Aasmier a core race. If Ardling ends up in the PHB it will be banned since it doesn't gel with my world.



I don’t think they’re really supposed to be a celestial equivalent of tieflings. If they were, they probably would have used Aasimar, or else they wouldn’t have doubled-down on the “beastfolk” angle in the revision. I think they’re meant to be a catch-all furry race, which I do think would be a very valuable option to have in the PHB. I just think the insistence on giving Ardlings a divine origin is muddying the waters. Drop that angle entirely and make them Hengeyokai (by another name if need be) and/or make them fey instead of celestial, that would clear up the confusion around their relationship with Aasimar.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

The original description was specifically avoiding being a furry species and instead being an animal-headed species. The direction people are taking it is to shove them in the furry box, but that wasn't inherent to the design. It's honestly been kind of fascinating to watch the hard category instinct in real time


----------



## Scribe (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> The original description was specifically avoiding being a furry species and instead being an animal-headed species. The direction people are taking it is to shove them in the furry box, but that wasn't inherent to the design. It's honestly been kind of fascinating to watch the hard category instinct in real time




I'm sure you saw what people immediately jumped to for the Plasmoids...thats just how certain segments of the population roll.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

Scribe said:


> I'm sure you saw what people immediately jumped to for the Plasmoids...thats just how certain segments of the population roll.



I wasn't around for that, actually. I skipped 5E 100% until 1D&D.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> The original description was specifically avoiding being a furry species and instead being an animal-headed species. The direction people are taking it is to shove them in the furry box, but that wasn't inherent to the design. It's honestly been kind of fascinating to watch the hard category instinct in real time



I suspect that describing them as animal-headed was an attempt to sell the divine origin, which I suspect they thought would be needed for a not-insignificant portion of the fanbase to be comfortable with a catch-all beastfolk race. But I think doing so will only make said race less appealing for the people who actually want it, hence my advocacy for dropping the pretense and letting the obvious furry race just be a furry race. Let DMs who have a problem with that ban it at their tables. They will anyway.


----------



## Scribe (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> I wasn't around for that, actually. I skipped 5E 100% until 1D&D.




Well lets just say what we ended up with, did not match what people were expecting/hoping.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 7, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Yep, it also applies to creatures like centaurs and fairies.
> 
> The main difference is that aardlings are looking to be a PHB species. And it's a lot harder to restrict PHB species than supplement material.



Are we sure of this? I don’t imageine we are getting any more than what is in the ‘14 PHB. I think the Ardling may be for another product. Just like they have done with other UAs


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I suspect that describing them as animal-headed was an attempt to sell the divine origin, which I suspect they thought would be needed for a not-insignificant portion of the fanbase to be comfortable with a catch-all beastfolk race. But I think doing so will only make said race less appealing for the people who actually want it, hence my advocacy for dropping the pretense and letting the obvious furry race just be a furry race. Let DMs who have a problem with that ban it at their tables. They will anyway.



Given the features, I feel like it's at least not unlikely that it was a sincere design. Ancient Egypt was still cool in the 90s. We even had cartoons like Mummies Alive! Regardless, both concepts have separate merit. A bald-chested man with a ram head has a very different feel than an anthro ram.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 7, 2022)

Scribe said:


> Well lets just say what we ended up with, did not match what people were expecting/hoping.



Well, the way they’re depicted in official art doesn’t match what a lot of people thought of when they saw “ooze-people race.” In my experience, the way people actually describe their plasmoid characters is still exactly like what they thought of when they saw “ooze-people race,” regardless of what the official art looks like.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> Given the features, I feel like it's at least not unlikely that it was a sincere design. Ancient Egypt was still cool in the 90s. We even had cartoons like Mummies Alive! Regardless, both concepts have separate merit. A bald-chested man with a ram head has a very different feel than an anthro ram.



The cool thing is, Ardlings could accommodate both approaches. And they don’t have to be celestials to do so.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

Oh. They thought it was slime girls, didn't they. Oh internet.


----------



## Mecheon (Dec 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I suspect that describing them as animal-headed was an attempt to sell the divine origin, which I suspect they thought would be needed for a not-insignificant portion of the fanbase to be comfortable with a catch-all beastfolk race. But I think doing so will only make said race less appealing for the people who actually want it, hence my advocacy for dropping the pretense and letting the obvious furry race just be a furry race.



I have a flat suspicion they're an attempt to do playable Guardinals again. They've always been on-again off-again playable since 2e. Why they didn't just lean into that specifically I dunno, but they're an obvious and historic celestial aligned animal people race who've been in D&D for absolute yonks

Mind, let's be honest: certain Guardinals would be improved if they were just animal headed. Cough cough, avorals, cough


----------



## Xamnam (Dec 7, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Are we sure of this? I don’t imageine we are getting any more than what is in the ‘14 PHB. I think the Ardling may be for another product. Just like they have done with other UAs



Not sure, no, but this language, while admittedly talking about the Goliaths, leads me to believe that this playtest content is largely meant for the next PHB:


> "The Goliath also being included here is here also to fill a bit of an aesthetic gap, *because we realized as we were looking at the options in the PH*, we really had only one option if you wanted to-, the character fantasy that you were going for was playing the sort of the burly-"
> "Yeah "
> "The burly figure, which, you can make a member of any of the species burley if you want, but, when someone just looks at pictures usually what their eye will go to for this character archetype is the Orc, and we realized we needed a second option, because for for most of the choices we give you more than one option, and this was the rare case *where there was really only one in the player's handbook*, and that puts too much sort of aesthetic pressure on that one choice, and so we thought that we it would be good to have another option there to show that, you know, whatever the character archetype is that you're pursuing, you have several choices, and you don't feel funneled toward one thing."


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> Oh. They thought it was slime girls, didn't they. Oh internet.



Again, in my experience it _is_ slime girls, regardless of what the official art looks like.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 7, 2022)

Mecheon said:


> I have a flat suspicion they're an attempt to do playable Guardinals again. They've always been on-again off-again playable since 2e. Why they didn't just lean into that specifically I dunno, but they're an obvious and historic celestial aligned animal people race who've been in D&D for absolute yonks
> 
> Mind, let's be honest: certain Guardinals would be improved if they were just animal headed. Cough cough, avorals, cough



If that was the intent, then I would agree the PHB seems like a weird place for them.


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 7, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> The cool thing is, Ardlings could accommodate both approaches. And they don’t have to be celestials to do so.



This is why I like the approach of letting players pick the cantrip feature from any of the three pools OR a second mundane ability. It gives you all the options and lets you create a mystery about their true origin.


----------



## Xamnam (Dec 7, 2022)

Xamnam said:


> Not sure, no, but this language, while admittedly talking about the Goliaths, leads me to believe that this playtest content is largely meant for the next PHB:



Also, finding the quote for this post is the first time I've ever heard anyone call it "The PH" instead of "The PHB" and while it's arguably the more accurate short form, it's deeply upsetting.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> This is why I like the approach of letting players pick the cantrip feature from any of the three pools OR a second mundane ability. It gives you all the options and lets you create a mystery about their true origin.



I’d definitely be up for that.


----------



## aco175 (Dec 7, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> So, no Rakshasa or sphinxes or fiends in your game then? That's fine too. The point is that it's all silly goofy fun at the end of the day. It's fine if you're using a setting that uses the glued-on head ridges design instead of full mask design, but it's all on the same level of fiction.



I might have these in my games, but as monsters and not as PC choices.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 7, 2022)

As someone else mentioned, Ardlings might be in the updated PHB as a bit of a selling point. Right now, it's not like there are a lot of earthshaking changes (by design), so you could see a lot of players wondering why they should buy it. But now you get modestly revised spell lists _and_ Ardlings!


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 7, 2022)

As I said here, I am so much more excited about this version of the aardling than the last version. I hope it is in the PHB, and I'd use it a lot.

All four of the animal options are good -- I don't especially want flight at level 1, but the free feather fall and a jump option is good. I suspect the dash and swim options are stronger mechanically -- but there's three options I could go to that would enhance almost any build.

I would prefer a Primal cantrip to a Divine one, but I can live with this. Guidance and Resistance are both solid now and use a reaction (making them a choice for players, foregoing opportunity attacks or whatever), which I think is a goo ddesign space, and raises some interesting options in play. Sacrd Flame as an attack cantrip is solid, though I would prefer having Produce Flame (since it can double as Light and use an attack roll).

They are a good choice for almost any race, without being over-designed for any given build. That's a good design, in my mind, and I know I am not tied to any particular anuimal head or background-narrative combination.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 8, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I freaking love that it allows me to say "ardlings are a race, make it fit this culture they have in my world" the next time someone tries to tell me about their "fursona" & why it needs a totally new & ever expanding OC import culture somewhere to fit in



That feels needlessly hostile to a player who's excited about playing in your game.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 8, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> That feels needlessly hostile to a player who's excited about playing in your game.



It's usually more a player who is excited about making my game their novel with any "well there is x that has some similarities that you could adapt that thing you are describing to fit" followed by "great so we should replace x with this totally revised thing and add y because it will need that to fit the whole story"
Playing my game is a distant second to playing their novel.


----------



## NaturalZero (Dec 8, 2022)

I really like shifters. I like Tabaxi. I like Tortles. I like the concept of Lizardfolk (the execution sucks). I like Tritons. I like Aarocokra. I like Kenku. I like Yuan-ti. 

I really, really feel like we don't need Ardlings. Stop trying to take everyone else's lunch.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Dec 8, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Wish? It’s 9th level. What about the Cleric equivalent?



Divine intervention.  11th level.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 8, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Equally possible with similarly powerful non-divine entities. We should be comparing like to like; wizards to clerics, gods to Archfey.



Idk about your settings but I’ve seen no evidence that such beings _are_ comparably powerful to gods. Maybe demigods.


----------



## Corinnguard (Dec 8, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> It's usually more a player who is excited about making my game their novel with any "well there is x that has some similarities that you could adapt that thing you are describing to fit" followed by "great so we should replace x with this totally revised thing and add y because it will need that to fit the whole story"
> Playing my game is a distant second to playing their novel.



The best way to handle such a person in your games is to remind them that you and the other players, not just them, are writing the "story". D&D and other RPGs are complex 'Choose Your Own Story' adventures where you as DM present your players with several options on how to approach a given situation. They pick one of those options or come up with a reasonably well-thought option of their own, and then you take the party down that path to the next situation. 

Novels for what they are worth are linear. RPGs otoh resemble a tree with numerous branching off points. 

At any rate, as DM, you have final say on what species (WoTC really needs to change that name.   )you are going to allow into your game. If you don't want Ardlings in your game, cast _Banishment. _ Or _Banish Species. _


----------



## ART! (Dec 8, 2022)

I think if they're trying to appeal to players who want to play anime-influenced, furry, anthropomorphic characters, then the ardling needs more options.


----------



## Gorck (Dec 8, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I would prefer a Primal cantrip to a Divine one, but I can live with this.



For beast-headed creatures, I'd have thought a Primal cantrip would be a no-brainer.  I'm still not sure why they are insisting on keeping this Celestial link.


----------



## Corinnguard (Dec 8, 2022)

Gorck said:


> For beast-headed creatures, I'd have thought a Primal cantrip would be a no-brainer.  I'm still not sure why they are insisting on keeping this Celestial link.



They're probably keeping it to help us distinguish them from the anthropomorphic animal species already existing on the Material Plane. Even though the Ardlings moved to the Material Plane worlds sometime ago.   In previous D&D editions, the Ardlings would have been seen as Outsider (Native).


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 8, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> Oh. They thought it was slime girls, didn't they. Oh internet.



It's always been slime girls, Incenjucar.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 8, 2022)

Still got no clue why we need taxabi AND leonin AND cat shifters, AND cat head aardlings.

We now have four ways for people to play as a cat-like schmorp.

Just having a cat beast race (with taxabi and leonin as subspecies options), and shifters would be enough.


----------



## Corinnguard (Dec 8, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Still got no clue why we need taxabi AND leonin AND cat shifters, AND cat head aardlings.
> 
> We now have four ways for people to play as a cat-like schmorp.



When you adventure in the Multiverse, it's best to have a lot of options.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 8, 2022)

We need MtG Catwarriors too


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 8, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> When you adventure in the Multiverse, it's best to have a lot of options.



I'd rather they spent time adding options actually missing, like a plant schmorp.

Leshys are one of the best and most adorable parts of pathfinder.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 8, 2022)

But to really answer the question, it's because they operate differently if you actually look at the species rather than the fact that they're cats.

Tabaxi are the fast nimble housecat people. Leonins are big, strong 'leaderly' lion types. Cat shifters are were-cats, having modes between person and creature. And Ardlings are so you can get close to the big horse mommy from the BoED.


----------



## Xamnam (Dec 8, 2022)

Would love a plant schmorp. Somewhat related, I think there's definitely design space between genasi and warforged for something interesting.


----------



## Corinnguard (Dec 8, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> I'd rather they spent time adding options actually missing, like a plant schmorp.
> 
> Leshys are one of the best and most adorable parts of pathfinder.



New & Alternate Player Races by laserllama  Check out the Entlings from Laser Llama.


----------



## Corinnguard (Dec 8, 2022)

Xamnam said:


> Would love a plant schmorp. Somewhat related, I think there's definitely design space between genasi and warforged for something interesting.



Elemental Warforged.


----------



## Gorck (Dec 8, 2022)

Just thinking about a cow headed Ardling reminds me of the Minotaur from Time Bandits:


Spoiler


----------



## Kobold Stew (Dec 8, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Still got no clue why we need taxabi AND leonin AND cat shifters, AND cat head aardlings.
> 
> We now have four ways for people to play as a cat-like schmorp.
> 
> Just having a cat beast race (with taxabi and leonin as subspecies options), and shifters would be enough.




I do not understand this position.

Leonin were in the Theros book, and has had no wider uptake, I don't think. Didn't make the cut into MotM, for example, as satyrs did.

I don't think the word cat even appears in the description of shifters -- weretiger ancestors being the closest thing, and only one of two speedy options.

So there's tabaxi and a small subset of ardlings (1 of 16 examples given).

Of these, would your objection disappear if they simply removed the example of "cat" from the list of creatures associated with the climber option?

For most players, there is one cat race -- Tabaxi. Players who want to can add catlike characteristics to two others, where it is completely optional and has no menchanical effect.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Dec 8, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I do not understand this position.
> 
> Leonin were in the Theros book, and has had no wider uptake, I don't think. Didn't make the cut into MotM, for example, as satyrs did.
> 
> ...



The word 'feline' also used to describe swiftstride shifters. It's quite clear that they can be humans with cat-like features if the player wants.

Using the taxabi/leonin/shifter trio was just an example though. My main issue is just aardlings trying to simultaneously overlap with aasimar, shifters, and the varying beastfolk at the same time.

Ideally I'd prefer to see aardlings become an aasimar sub-schmorp, with links to Guardinals as their celestial heritage. The player could them flavour that as traits from whatever animal they wanted, including an animal head.


----------



## Mecheon (Dec 8, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Still got no clue why we need taxabi AND leonin AND cat shifters, AND cat head aardlings.
> 
> We now have four ways for people to play as a cat-like schmorp.



Cats got different traits. Wouldn't associate what you would with a lion what you would with a serval or caracal, or even a cheetah

And, well, shifters are werebeasts-light so sort of divorced from things, and Aardlings can be anything they want, with cat as just a suggestion. You don't even need to go with the associated ones, given they mentioned "Triceratops" as an option, it'd be easy just to rejig it to Anteosaurus or the like. Or, well, Velociraptor for something that isn't a semi-obscure Permian beasty


Frozen_Heart said:


> Just having a cat beast race (with taxabi and leonin as subspecies options), and shifters would be enough.



Tabaxi and Leonin are close enough you could theoretically subspecies 'em, sure, but, they've never been presented that way and what works for one doesn't work for another



Frozen_Heart said:


> Ideally I'd prefer to see aardlings become an aasimar sub-schmorp, with links to Guardinals as their celestial heritage. The player could them flavour that as traits from whatever animal they wanted, including an animal head.



The only time Aasimar have ever been used to display Guardinal features was in Pathfinder. Given Guardinals are specifically just, living creatures who dwell in the planes (As opposed to full on celestial entities like angels or deva), I'd argue proper presentation should make them stand-alone


----------



## Corinnguard (Dec 9, 2022)

Mecheon said:


> Cats got different traits. Wouldn't associate what you would with a lion what you would with a serval or caracal, or even a cheetah
> 
> And, well, shifters are werebeasts-light so sort of divorced from things, and Aardlings can be anything they want, with cat as just a suggestion. You don't even need to go with the associated ones, given they mentioned "Triceratops" as an option, it'd be easy just to rejig it to Anteosaurus or the like. Or, well, Velociraptor for something that isn't a semi-obscure Permian beasty
> 
> ...



According to the Forgotten Realms Wiki, Guardinals are animalistic celestials native to Elysium. They're very much like the Angels and the Archons.


----------



## Scribe (Dec 9, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> I'd rather they spent time adding options actually missing, like a plant schmorp.
> 
> Leshys are one of the best and most adorable parts of pathfinder.



Groot when?!


----------



## NaturalZero (Dec 9, 2022)

Xamnam said:


> Would love a plant schmorp.



Since 3.5 I've had mandragora as a human-sized plant race with song, sonic, and plant based features. There's a nightshade subrace that deals with poison, a luffa subrace that's more cactus-like and every subrace has a scream or song as a feature. It's weird how little the developers care to work on plant races when it's just laying there waiting to be developed.


----------



## Mecheon (Dec 9, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> According to the Forgotten Realms Wiki, Guardinals are animalistic celestials native to Elysium. They're very much like the Angels and the Archons.



The FR wiki is a Wikia/Fandom wiki. Never trust those. Warriors of Heaven back in 2E goes a bit into it, but they're born, age and die like regular folks, not immortal like angels. They're closer to how Eladrin work than how angels work.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 9, 2022)

Gorck said:


> For beast-headed creatures, I'd have thought a Primal cantrip would be a no-brainer.  I'm still not sure why they are insisting on keeping this Celestial link.



There is a lot of RL mythology (and D&D lore) around animal headed divine / heavenly / celestial entities. I imagine that is why


----------



## Corinnguard (Dec 9, 2022)

Warriors of Heaven was an attempt (and an interesting one at that) to allow the players in 2e a chance to role-play a Celestial (Angels, Archons, Asuras, Eladrin and the Guardinals).


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 9, 2022)

Mecheon said:


> The FR wiki is a Wikia/Fandom wiki. Never trust those. Warriors of Heaven back in 2E goes a bit into it, but they're born, age and die like regular folks, not immortal like angels. They're closer to how Eladrin work than how angels work.



What is the 3e lore on them?


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 9, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> Warriors of Heaven was an attempt (and an interesting one at that) to allow the players in 2e a chance to role-play a Celestial (Angels, Archons, Asuras, Eladrin and the Guardinals).



And (in a web enhancement) quesars.


----------



## Corinnguard (Dec 9, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> And (in a web enhancement) quesars.



What were they like? _curious_


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 9, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> What were they like? _curious_



Basically, they were constructs made by the aasimons (i.e. angels) to watch over important treasures, until the quesars decided that they wanted more out of existence than to be automatons. There's a good article about them over on the Forgotten Realms wiki:









						Quesar
					

Quesars were living constructs of light created by the aasimon. Some described quesars as stars brought to the ground. These gaunt humanoids shined with an intense light that would blind most creatures and extend for about 40 feet (12 meters) from their bodies. Behind the radiant glow, a quesar...




					forgottenrealms.fandom.com
				




You can also still find the page with the web enhancement thanks to the Wayback Machine:



			Dungeons & Dragons


----------



## cbwjm (Dec 9, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> What level is the "create magical species" wizard spell?



It's 8th level but you'll have to update it to 5e before using it.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Dec 10, 2022)

honestly, I hate generic animal folk but I hate aasamar more as they have the worst aesthetic known to human life.

I see a need for a generic cleric race

I hate most phb options as is what is one more I do not care about?


----------

