D&D One: Aardlings Officially Out

[Damon_Tor]

Now that the dust has settled, how does everyone feel about Aardlings being officially abandoned by D&D One?

[Zevox]

They're only out for the PHB, not forever, in case that part didn't get to you.

And personally, pleased by that result. They're a fine new race to add, but feel way too niche and random as a new PHB race.

[Xervous]

Non PHB was all I asked. They have a niche somewhere, but they’re not a common condiment.

[Trask]

I'm glad. Not to sound old and crusty, but I think Tiefling and Dragonborn are more than enough for freakazoid races in the basic package of the game.

[Psyren]

Disappointed but I understand. I was looking forward to seeing more detailed lore on how they might have become a core race. Now they run the risk of being specific to just one setting.

[Kane0]

Happy it's not going to be in core, if they do return in splat that will hopefully leave them room to get fully fleshed out and incorporated into wherever they go.

[Saelethil]

It looks like they might be working their way through monster type based books (Fizban’s Dragons, the Giant book coming out this year) they’ll probably put it into whatever ends up being the Celestial book. Otherwise it’ll probably just go in the next “Book of Everything”

[JackPhoenix]

It is? Good riddance. Now, about the other stupid ideas....

[Tawmis]

It is? Good riddance. Now, about the other stupid ideas....

Think they will do anything to change Ebberon, the high magic steampunk setting?

[Dienekes]

It was always trying to do too much with too little room.

Conceptually it was a muddled work, since we already have the opposite of Tiefling in Aasimar. At least fluffwise, mechanically they were distinct. So they made Ardlings the mechanical foil, but if you do that then the animal aspect is non-existent. So if they want to reinforce the animalness then it can’t be the mechanical foil and we’re back to, we already have the opposite of the Tiefling in the Aasimar.

Now, we could use the Ardling to instead act as a reference to -trying to dance around the censors here- certain religions that are not well represented by Aasimar. And that’s not a bad idea at all. But the divine casting list does a terrible job representing the powers of deities in the one I know. But then if we do try to rework it to best reflect those traditions then it’d probably be best to go back to the animal-headedness as just mechanicless fluff.

So, yeah, I’m fine with them being gone.

Personally, I think just printing Aasimar, saying they can have various otherworldly signifiers of their heritage such as animal heads or whatever. Then work on a generic Beastfolk species with mix and match elements so we have a base framework and don’t end with 0 dog people and somehow 3 birds.

[Pex]

Good

ten letters

[AmewTheFox]

I liked the idea of having a race that represented more animals than are currently represented by current beastman options. (Despite some opinions, you will never have enough options that cover enough animals.)

[Goobahfish]

Meh...

"I have no strong feelings one way or the other."

What races are in the PHB is such a non-event. The ONLY thing I care about is how much race defines character. Like... does it become irrelevant past level 1... or level 5 etc.

[JadedDM]

My guess is they'll reintroduce them in the Planescape release this summer. They seem a better fit for that anyway.

[Joe the Rat]

Ardlings were just too out of nowhere for PHB. There is room (there's enough fans in general) and I can see places for them, but they aren't really core.

I know it's a typo, but Aardlings (earth-lings), a species or species-group with Primal ties rather than the "suddenly egyptian god themed divine species, screw the aasimar amirite?" approach could have been a clever idea to capture a lot of funny-animal concepts in one go.

[RogueJK]

I liked the idea of having a race that represented more animals than are currently represented by current beastman options. (Despite some opinions, you will never have enough options that cover enough animals.)

There's not a huge amount of design space left there. You've already got:

Cats (including just about any feline subtype)
Lions, specifically
Elephants
Bulls
Birds (including just about any avian subtype)
Owls, specifically
Ravens, specifically
Frogs
Fish
Lizards
Turtles
Hippos
Insects (kinda)
Snakes (kinda)
Horses (kinda)
Squirrels (kinda)

What does that leave?

Dogs? (They already kinda exist in the lore as the Gnoll race, although we don't have them as a playable PC race yet.)
Sharks? (Again, they already kinda exist in the lore as Sahuagin, but not a playable race yet.)
Rhinos?
Giraffes?
Apes?
Foxes?
Raccoons?
Deer/Elk?
Etc.

Are these distinctive enough in appearance and abilities from the other options to justify having an entire separate race devoted to each of them, rather than a reskin/refluff of an existing race?

And do we even really want WotC to try? Look at what a lazy job they did with the Owlin description/lore, after all... Four whole sentences, one of which is just a throwaway bad pun. So you're presented with a little bit of mechanical difference from something like an Aarakocra, but no distinctive lore and no real distinctive appearance (your Aarakocra could look like an owl anyway), so you're basically left to have to homebrew most of your "Owlkin" stuff yourself anyway.

[Kane0]

What does that leave?

Dogs? (They already kinda exist in the lore as the Gnoll race, although we don't have them as a playable PC race yet.)


Lupins, from Mystara. Same place Tortles are from.

[P. G. Macer]

There's not a huge amount of design space left there. You've already got:

~Snip~
Dogs? (They already kinda exist in the lore as the Gnoll race, although we don't have them as a playable PC race yet.)
~Snip~


I bring this up every time someone suggests gnolls as a canine species, but hyenas are not members of the dog family, and are actually more closely related to cats than dogs.

[Segev]

Kobolds were dog-people before they were dragon-people. They have pack tactics, too. Reflavoring them as dog-people again would be pretty easy.

[Joe the Rat]

There's not a huge amount of design space left there. You've already got:

Cats (including just about any feline subtype)


Well that's half a problem right there. Tabaxi are supposed to be jungle panthers (jaguar / ocelot neighborhood), not housecats. So we're already reskinning the cat a few different ways. Ardling could expand this to pretty much all the therianthropes, and boil it down to fast/tough/predator/flightly/amphibious instead of having 1001 beastfolk. But that is more of an "anything goes" or world-builder approach, since that entails zero cultural or setting-related information.

[Segev]

I think the trouble with the Ardling insofar as representing different animals is that the animal is irrelevant to their features. You could fluff a human with an animal head and fur and have just as much variety.

[Unoriginal]

In the end, we Aardly knew them.

[RogueJK]

Well that's half a problem right there. Tabaxi are supposed to be jungle panthers (jaguar / ocelot neighborhood), not housecats. So we're already reskinning the cat a few different ways. Ardling could expand this to pretty much all the therianthropes, and boil it down to fast/tough/predator/flightly/amphibious instead of having 1001 beastfolk.

Why is treating both panther and housecat beastfolk as being "feline humanoids with extra speed, stealth, climbing ability, and claws" (Tabaxi) a problem, but your alternative of treating them both as generic "Fast/Predator Beastfolk" (Ardlings with a broad archetype) is fine?

Either way, the type of cat - or the type of animal altogether in the case of Ardlings - is just fluff on top of the mechanical base.

And from both fluff and mechanical standpoints, a housecat is a lot more similar to a panther than a jaguar is to a shark (an example of another fast/predator beast).

Your suggestion just seems like another giant leap down the Custom Lineage road of "all PC races/lineages are nonspecific amorphous blobs with the same couple of mechanical abilities but that look like whatever you want them to", whereas "Tabaxi as Catfolk" at least retains significant mechanical uniqueness in line with what one would expect the abilities of a humanoid cat person to be, rather than just something more bland like "as a Fast/Predator subtype Ardling/Beastkin/Whatever, you get a free skill proficiency, a 35' movement speed, and have the appearance of your chosen animal". That's just "a human with an animal head", as Segev put it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Now that the dust has settled, how does everyone feel about Aardlings being officially abandoned by D&D One? Glad to see them shown the door. Terrible idea.
Complement to Tiefling is Aasimar. How darned hard was that to grasp, for the devs, as regards Core PHB races/origins?

Aardlings in a splat or in a setting book?
I won't use them, but it's a good way to introduce them.

It is? Good riddance. Now, about the other stupid ideas.... Of which there are many, at least they pulled the "jump = action" nonsense.

Ardlings were just too out of nowhere for PHB. There is room (there's enough fans in general) and I can see places for them, but they aren't really core. I know it's a typo, but Aardlings (earth-lings), a species or species-group with Primal ties rather than the "suddenly egyptian god themed divine species, screw the aasimar amirite?" approach could have been a clever idea to capture a lot of funny-animal concepts in one go. Primals, not celestials. I like your take on it.

I bring this up every time someone suggests gnolls as a canine species, but hyenas are not members of the dog family, and are actually more closely related to cats than dogs. Yes, gnolls ~ hyenas. I am on board with you.

Kobolds were dog-people before they were dragon-people. They have pack tactics, too. Reflavoring them as dog-people again would be pretty easy. While I agree, I think that ship has sailed.

I think the trouble with the Ardling insofar as representing different animals is that the animal is irrelevant to their features. You could fluff a human with an animal head and fur and have just as much variety. Like a Minotaur, eh? :smallwink:

[Rafaelfras]

Praise the gods

[Psyren]

I'd be okay with PHB Aasimar if they gave them a rework similar to Dragonborn.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd be okay with PHB Aasimar if they gave them a rework similar to Dragonborn. Do you not like the ones from Volos?

[Psyren]

Do you not like the ones from Volos?

Even assuming you mean without the fixed ASIs... you mean the one where Healing Hands was a joke at low levels, where you need a whole Action to trigger your revelation form, where Fallen Aasimar frightens your allies, and where Scourge can zap yourself?

...The answer is no, I don't like the ones from Volo's.

[KorvinStarmast]

Even assuming you mean without the fixed ASIs... you mean the one where Healing Hands was a joke at low levels, where you need a whole Action to trigger your revelation form, where Fallen Aasimar frightens your allies, and where Scourge can zap yourself?

...The answer is no, I don't like the ones from Volo's. OK, we didn't have any problems with them other than the Scourge zap which the DM ruled was dumb so he modded it.

where Fallen Aasimar frightens your allies,
I actually liked that feature/bug. We also had a case where an ally was a creature type that my 'abjure extraplanar' turned, so off went our ally. Adds a little chaos (and hilarity) to battle, but I can see how it's annoying to most tables.

[Dienekes]

Even assuming you mean without the fixed ASIs... you mean the one where Healing Hands was a joke at low levels, where you need a whole Action to trigger your revelation form, where Fallen Aasimar frightens your allies, and where Scourge can zap yourself?

...The answer is no, I don't like the ones from Volo's.

Scourge zapping itself was awesome. I mean, narratively it works better with a Fallen. Being so corrupted that your own divine energy hurts you as you attempt to control it against your enemies. Awesome stuff.

Doesn’t really work as well for the fluff of the Scourge itself I’ll admit though. Other than the single word “all-consuming” the description really just describes someone that should have a smite-like feature.

[JackPhoenix]

OK, we didn't have any problems with them other than the Scourge zap which the DM ruled was dumb so he modded it.

Funny, because I liked burning yourself (with resistance) along with your enemies. Pretty thematic, though action to activate the ability was harsh.

[Dr.Samurai]

Now that the dust has settled, how does everyone feel about Aardlings being officially abandoned by D&D One?
I can aardly contain my excitement :smallbiggrin:

[RogueJK]

I can aardly contain my excitement :smallbiggrin:

https://media.makeameme.org/created/your-joke-is-me380w.jpg

(:smallbiggrin:)

[animewatcha]

Now to make Fizban dragonborn the official dragonborn for PHB.

[Leon]

Good, now to bring the Aasimar in to balance with the Tiefling (and while we are at it how about reducing to the variances of Tiefling's to down to match the three that the Aasimar has ~ a Abyssal one a Hellish one and one from Gehenna (so Demon, Fiend and Yugoloth heritage in effect)

[P. G. Macer]

Good, now to bring the Aasimar in to balance with the Tiefling (and while we are at it how about reducing to the variances of Tiefling's to down to match the three that the Aasimar has ~ a Abyssal one a Hellish one and one from Gehenna (so Demon, Fiend and Yugoloth heritage in effect)

The first One D&D UA document does exactly what you suggest for the tiefling.

[Leon]

The first One D&D UA document does exactly what you suggest for the tiefling.

Ah that's good, i must have missed that in the first one

[Psyren]

Scourge zapping itself was awesome. I mean, narratively it works better with a Fallen. Being so corrupted that your own divine energy hurts you as you attempt to control it against your enemies. Awesome stuff.

Nah, I'm good.


OK, we didn't have any problems with them other than the Scourge zap which the DM ruled was dumb so he modded it.

I actually liked that feature/bug. We also had a case where an ally was a creature type that my 'abjure extraplanar' turned, so off went our ally. Adds a little chaos (and hilarity) to battle, but I can see how it's annoying to most tables.

I'm happy that you liked Volosimar but hopefully I answered your question.


Now to make Fizban dragonborn the official dragonborn for PHB.

Now that they got a standard Dragonborn that cleared 80% this isn't happening.

[Bane's Wolf]

In the end, we Aardly knew them.

:smallbiggrin: don't know why this made me laugh, but it did :smallbiggrin:


I'd be okay with PHB Aasimar if they gave them a rework similar to Dragonborn.
Yes Please. I love the Aasimar, especially that they are thematically the opposite of the tiefling, but without having to be "planar opposites"

I mean, it's okay that we now have "Demon, Devil and Yugoloth" tieflings, but i don't want to see the same "lawful, neutral, chaotic" Aasimar

I feel they work better currently as "Justice Angel, Righteous Fury Angel and Fallen Angel". Much more fun identity for me. :smallsmile:


Scourge zapping itself was awesome. I mean, narratively it works better with a Fallen. Being so corrupted that your own divine energy hurts you as you attempt to control it against your enemies. Awesome stuff.

Doesn’t really work as well for the fluff of the Scourge itself I’ll admit though. Other than the single word “all-consuming” the description really just describes someone that should have a smite-like feature.

I enjoyed Scourge burning itself. It added to the danger of unleashing your Righteous Fury on an evil-doer. :smallfurious:

Fallen Aasimar was the Goth of the trio. I think it fit that he could accidentally scare his friends with his edginess :smalltongue:

[False God]

Hooray. Now give me Aasimar core. Or, frankly, crush all the "planetouched" races down into a "build your own bear" option.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hooray. Now give me Aasimar core. Yes, to complement the Tiefling. :smallsmile:
Or take Tiefling out of core.

[Slipjig]

Yes, to complement the Tiefling. :smallsmile:
Or take Tiefling out of core.

Never going to happen. Teiflings are AT LEAST as popular as some of the classic races.

[Sception]

I'm fine w/ it. IMO phb races/species should either go to fantasy staples (humans, elves, dwarves, halflings) or to simple concepts where someone entirely new to D&D can tell what they're about at a glance (dragonborn, tieflings). Basically stuff that doesn't require a lot of setting or lore explanation or any familiarity with the esoteric details of D&D to get.

Aardlings just weren't that. They were a celestial race conceptually and mechanically, but an anthro animal people race aesthetically. They had connections D&D celestial types and planar dynamics that are neat, but also pretty obscure to those with an outside perspective. Divine beings with animal heads isn't a completely out there - my mind went immediatly to egyptian mythology, or to the Hindu god Ganesha, but I still think PHB wasn't the right place to introduce them.

Compare to tieflings - devil people that look like english language depictions of devils. Immediately graspable by the main audience. Note that many devils in D&D don't look like traditional devil depictions. Some have barbed tentacle beards, or look like chain mummies, or weird giant bugs. Tieflings notably /don't/ have weird tentacle beards, or look like chain mummies, or weird giant bugs, and least not in their default depictions, because even though such features would make them more uniquely D&D, they would also make them less immediately iconic and memetic, and they would not have caught on as well as they have, such that even the grognards who objected to their phb inclusion mostly give them a free pass now.

If the dev's wanted a celestial counterpart to the tieflings in the phb, then what they wanted was Aasimar - angel people who look like typical english language depictions of angels. If the first playtest had come out with a new version of Aasimar that looked pop culture angelic and were mechanically identical to the initial test version of the Aardlings, I think people would have been perfectly happy with them.

Likewise, I think if they had included a new version of shifters - explicitly anthro animal people without the celestial theme muddying the water, but with the mechanics of the second version of Aardlings... well, people might not have been impressed, the second version of ardling mechanics were kind of dull and underwhelming, but people would have mostly been happy for the inclusion and the feedback would have been 'tune up these mechanics so they're as cool as the concept' not 'this doesn't belong in the phb'.


The more recent goliaths aren't better designed than the original aardlings mechanically, and I don't think players in general just want giant people more than angel people. But goliaths are much more straight forward a concept. Easily graspable, more memetic, less esoteric and specific. Less interesting I'd argue, but a better fit for a core race.


I do hope aardlings come back in a future book - maybe one themed around the celestial planes, or divine magic, or a societies & civilizations book based around urban adventuring that includes discussion of theocracies alongside mageocracies and monarchies as possible setting choices. If they do come back, I hope they come back looking more like their initial version than the later one mechanically. I'd absolutely build a theocratic society aesthetically based on ancient egypt around them. The animal-headed semi-divine ardlings living in floating temple complexes above while the people they rule work the land beneath - with the original mission of guiding mortals that the aardlings were created for having distorted over the centuries into ruling over them instead. Not necessarily maliciously - most of the aardlings would see themselves as 'shepherds' rather than dictators, but a distinction that may not have too much difference to their subjects. Yeah, you could build a campaign or at least a few adventures around a place like that.

[Bane's Wolf]

I'm fine w/ it. IMO phb races/species should either go to fantasy staples (humans, elves, dwarves, halflings) or to simple concepts where someone entirely new to D&D can tell what they're about at a glance (dragonborn, tieflings). Basically stuff that doesn't require a lot of setting or lore explanation or any familiarity with the esoteric details of D&D to get.

Aardlings just weren't that. They were a celestial race conceptually and mechanically, but an anthro animal people race aesthetically. They had connections D&D celestial types and planar dynamics that are neat, but also pretty obscure to those with an outside perspective. Divine beings with animal heads isn't a completely out there - my mind went immediatly to egyptian mythology, or to the Hindu god Ganesha, but I still think PHB wasn't the right place to introduce them.

Compare to tieflings - devil people that look like english language depictions of devils. Immediately graspable by the main audience. Note that many devils in D&D don't look like traditional devil depictions. Some have barbed tentacle beards, or look like chain mummies, or weird giant bugs. Tieflings notably /don't/ have weird tentacle beards, or look like chain mummies, or weird giant bugs, and least not in their default depictions, because even though such features would make them more uniquely D&D, they would also make them less immediately iconic and memetic, and they would not have caught on as well as they have, such that even the grognards who objected to their phb inclusion mostly give them a free pass now.

Agreed :smallsmile:
I was one of the grognards who hated the inclusion of Tieflings (and dragonborn... :smallfrown:) when i first got my 5e players guide.
By now, I'm so used to them as an aesthetic in my worlds that i would hate to lose them :smallamused:


If the dev's wanted a celestial counterpart to the tieflings in the phb, then what they wanted was Aasimar - angel people who look like typical english language depictions of angels. If the first playtest had come out with a new version of Aasimar that looked pop culture angelic and were mechanically identical to the initial test version of the Aardlings, I think people would have been perfectly happy with them.

Not perfectly happy... I've fallen in love with our current Aasimar
I'm not a fan of the perfectly symmetrical Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic angels.

Still, i have to admit you are right. i would have accepted them as the new Angel people without the weirdness of the animal heads



I do hope aardlings come back in a future book - maybe one themed around the celestial planes, or divine magic, or a societies & civilizations book based around urban adventuring that includes discussion of theocracies alongside mageocracies and monarchies as possible setting choices. If they do come back, I hope they come back looking more like their initial version than the later one mechanically. I'd absolutely build a theocratic society aesthetically based on ancient egypt around them. The animal-headed semi-divine ardlings living in floating temple complexes above while the people they rule work the land beneath - with the original mission of guiding mortals that the aardlings were created for having distorted over the centuries into ruling over them instead. Not necessarily maliciously - most of the aardlings would see themselves as 'shepherds' rather than dictators, but a distinction that may not have too much difference to their subjects. Yeah, you could build a campaign or at least a few adventures around a place like that.

Agreed :smallsmile:
The Aardlings have a place, just perhaps not in the PHB

[JackPhoenix]

Agreed :smallsmile:
I was one of the grognards who hated the inclusion of Tieflings (and dragonborn... :smallfrown:) when i first got my 5e players guide.
By now, I'm so used to them as an aesthetic in my worlds that i would hate to lose them :smallamused:

As much as I like tieflings (and I really do), I could do without them in the PHB. You could still have them if they were in the MM or some other splatbook. Or just put in a Planetouched race with subraces for tieflings, aasimar, genasi and whatever else.

[False God]

Yes, to complement the Tiefling. :smallsmile:
Or take Tiefling out of core.

Agreed. I'd be happy to see an entire supplemental "The Planes" book that includes all variety of Planetouched races, but also...


Never going to happen. Teiflings are AT LEAST as popular as some of the classic races.
This is totally true.

[Leon]

Hooray. Now give me Aasimar core. Or, frankly, crush all the "planetouched" races down into a "build your own bear" option.

A good thought but WotC seem hellbent of removing choice lest a player make a bad one.

[False God]

A good thought but WotC seem hellbent of removing choice lest a player make a bad one.

I don't think it's unreasonable for them to attempt to make apparently equitable options actually equitable. "Bad choices" aren't really useful elements to include in a game, especially when they cannot be changed.

Though personally I think a lot of this racial bloat could be solved by moving back to a PHB1, PHB2, PHB3, etc... system wherein each book only contains 4 or 5 options, rather than 10 or 13.

But then I also think D&D focuses waaaaaay too much on "race".

[paladinn]

I have zero disappointment with aardlings being dropped. That said, I am more than a little disappointed that that was actually on the table to be included in core.

5e is the best-performing edition since at least 3e, maybe even 2e. They obviously have had a winner for a while now. So many of the changes for DD1 are unnecessary. All they really needed to do is consolidate the material in the different manuals and update what was in the PHB. With everything that's come out in Xanathar's and Tasha's and the rest, some of the material in the PHB really is obsolete.

But of course, instead, they are going to improve the game to the point it really doesn't work.

My loyalties are already divided. I'm close to jumping ship.

End of rant..lol

[Psyren]

A good thought but WotC seem hellbent on removing choice lest a player make a bad one.



Though personally I think a lot of this racial bloat could be solved by moving back to a PHB1, PHB2, PHB3, etc... system wherein each book only contains 4 or 5 options, rather than 10 or 13.

I weep for the poor designers who have to distill actionable feedback out of this.

[False God]

I weep for the poor designers who have to distill actionable feedback out of this.

I suspect they will do what any designer does: Ignore the stuff they disagree with.

[Psyren]

I suspect they will do what any designer does: Ignore the stuff they disagree with.

The existence of this entire thread disproves your assertion.

[False God]

The existence of this entire thread disproves your assertion.

You presume much on behalf of others.

[Psyren]

You presume much on behalf of others.

I'm not "presuming" anything, Crawford literally said what happened. The designers wanted Ardling in core, the survey didn't, they went with the survey. If they were ignoring feedback they didn't like, as you claim, it would still be around.

[Anonymouswizard]

Never going to happen. Teiflings are AT LEAST as popular as some of the classic races.

Well everybody loves a horny sorceress.

More seriously, I'd love a couple more races with a tendency towards horns. Horns look cool, don't have to give as mechanical benefit but could, and look cool.

As to the sactual thread topic? Goodbye Aardlings, I'd say you'd be missed but 5e Aasimar are just way cooler (and mostly fixed by the switch to PB over level in their ability formulae). But I'd honestly be fine with more Planetouched being in the PhB, one of the two settings I've tried to write in recent years was entirely humans and planetouched. Planetouched work because, well, they're still mostly human and don't come with societies attached, which makes it a lot less work in the 'no, in this setting dwarves have trimmed beards' department (which yes, is true for the other setting I'm writing). Animal folk are cool, but Ardlings needed to be their own thing instead of 'furry anti-tieflings'.

[Leon]

I weep for the poor designers who have to distill actionable feedback out of this.

This has no bearing on feedback to those chumps but observations made on a forum between posters.

[Witty Username]

More seriously, I'd love a couple more races with a tendency towards horns. Horns look cool, don't have to give as mechanical benefit but could, and look cool.


Seems fair, I like me some minotaur (at least when I am thinking Dragonlance), some more horned races would be neat.
--
Aardling didn't bother me any, I had no plans on using it ever. Sounds like no one else did either.

[Anonymouswizard]

Seems fair, I like me some minotaur (at least when I am thinking Dragonlance), some more horned races would be neat.

Yep, might not be a bad idea to give the 'generic' races some more visual flare along the same lines, or at least some of the subraces (I can see wood elves or eladrin having such animal features, to pick the easy example). It's not the first change I'd make if I was in charge of 6e, that would be adding a shapeshifter and summoner class to the PhB, but it's up there.


Aardling didn't bother me any, I had no plans on using it ever. Sounds like no one else did either.

Honestly I think most people didn't care, with most of the backlash being fear that the Aasimar were getting replaced alongside a bit of 'ew, furry'. If they do become a supplementary race it'll probably be to few people caring, some people will use them but many people won't.

[False God]

Honestly I think most people didn't care, with most of the backlash being fear that the Aasimar were getting replaced alongside a bit of 'ew, furry'. If they do become a supplementary race it'll probably be to few people caring, some people will use them but many people won't.

Furries aside, I'm actually in full support of animal people. Tabaxi, Leonin, Loxodon, etc... I find the "dual nature" animal/human to be a much more interesting point than "animal head".

But again, I'd also want this to appear in some kind of fitting supplement book, maybe one that also includes some subclasses that focus on animal companions, animal spirits and shapeshifting, some kind of Ranger/Druid/Barbarian sourcebook or setting where these elements are much more prevalent and relevant.

[Dr.Samurai]

Couldn't they have made aardlings a sub of aasimar? Since celestial animals is what guardinals are.

[Psyren]

Couldn't they have made aardlings a sub of aasimar? Since celestial animals is what guardinals are.

It's moot for the time being, but I viewed it as:

Aasimar = Angels (any/all upper planes)
Ardlings = Paragons (Archons for LG, Guardinals for NG, Arboreals* for CG).

*These were called Eladrin in 3e, before those got shifted to being more Feywild than Arborea.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's moot for the time being, but I viewed it as:

Aasimar = Angels (any/all upper planes)
Ardlings = Paragons (Archons for LG, Guardinals for NG, Arboreals* for CG).

*These were called Eladrin in 3e, before those got shifted to being more Feywild than Arborea.
So, when I first saw the aardling I thought "what in the absolute nonsense is this???".

And I didn't look into it further than the PDF.

But I think if it had been packaged as "here's how you play a hound/owl/warden archon, or a guardinal", I would have been more on board. Eladrin didn't really have animal types, so these would sort of get lost unless they were reimagined (similar to how archons were elemental in 4E).

But starting the game as a hound archon-lite would be awesome.

[Psyren]

To be fair, they did mention Hound Archons as an inspiration in the doc, but I agree it wasn't fleshed out enough for people to see the appeal. I accepted that because I didn't expect a playtest packet to contain the full lore details of a new race, but it still worked against them in the end.

I'm disappointed, but looking forward to seeing what they look like when they come back.

[Anonymouswizard]

Furries aside, I'm actually in full support of animal people. Tabaxi, Leonin, Loxodon, etc... I find the "dual nature" animal/human to be a much more interesting point than "animal head".

But again, I'd also want this to appear in some kind of fitting supplement book, maybe one that also includes some subclasses that focus on animal companions, animal spirits and shapeshifting, some kind of Ranger/Druid/Barbarian sourcebook or setting where these elements are much more prevalent and relevant.

I mean, I brought the furry thing up because it's something I remember from them originally dropping. It's not something I personally care about, beastfolk are cool but they aren't anywhere near my first choice (which is generally Planetouched).

As to the furries and similar people I know, most would probably be happy with the existing options, particularly tabaxi. But honestly an entire book just dedicated to a couple dozen beastfolk races (and maybe shifters like werewolves) would be cool.


Couldn't they have made aardlings a sub of aasimar? Since celestial animals is what guardinals are.

Honestly 4rle and 5e have probably laid decent groundwork for an alternative Aasimar origin if they want to go with Aardlings as a major category of Planetouched. 4e Deva and 5e Aasimar draw quite heavily from chosen one tropes, and with a bit of rejigging you can get a race of divine champions blessed by the gods (or other powerful outsiders) without being literally descended from them.

[Dienekes]

Considering Tieflings are apparently getting their break from the Asmodification (for the better in my opinion) it seems like it would be relatively easy to expand the concept of the Aasimar.

Now that said, I suspect the idea was to make Ardlings their own thing for a few reasons, but primarily they wanted to make the "parallel to the Tiefling" more direct mechanically. I mean go look at the original playtest packet of how the Tiefling and the Ardling are presented. They both are set up in basically the same way. While Aasimar have a much stronger narrative to them with the risen, avenging, and fallen angel aspect that doesn't really fit into the groupings the same way as cleanly dividing between the planes does. But even after they backed off on that and instead focused on the animal part, they didn't actually do the animal thing well. So... I dunno Ardlings were kinda a half and half mess of concepts before they were expunged. We'll just see if they can make a coherent concept from them when they get added to a setting book.

[KorvinStarmast]

A good thought but WotC seem hellbent of removing choice lest a player make a bad one. IMO, they are still bloated. 3 sub-classes for each class is enough for core. For a game that will not actually backward compatible.

That said, I am more than a little disappointed that that was actually on the table to be included in core. I felt similarly. ANd the suggestion of putting All plane touched into a supplement (to include Aasimar and Tieflings) make (to me) thematic sense.

So many of the changes for DD1 are unnecessary.
But of course, instead, they are going to improve the game to the point it really doesn't work.


Couldn't they have made aardlings a sub of aasimar? Since celestial animals is what guardinals are. And the first published adventure will be The Guardinal of the Gremlin, no doubt. :smallyuk:

Not a bad idea to have the Aasimar be the race and based on which plane, an aardling be a sub race. That approach is at least coherent.

[Dr.Samurai]

To be fair, they did mention Hound Archons as an inspiration in the doc, but I agree it wasn't fleshed out enough for people to see the appeal. I accepted that because I didn't expect a playtest packet to contain the full lore details of a new race, but it still worked against them in the end.

I'm disappointed, but looking forward to seeing what they look like when they come back.
True. I was completely thrown off by triceratops head and egyptian lore, etc. I think I can share responsibility with WotC's representation a little.

Not a bad idea to have the Aasimar be the race and based on which plane, an aardling be a sub race. That approach is at least coherent.
Yeah I think for me and others it just seemed like out of left field. I think making it a part of aasimar might have helped. I agree a putting it in a book of planetouched would make sense.

But then... I don't mind a tiefling for each archdevil, and demon prince, and whatever the yugoloths have. I think if you're going to do something like that, go for it completely. So give us a book with a tiefling for each devil/demon lord, and an aasimar for each of the angels and the paragons, etc. But I can hear the pitchforks being grabbed now... "Splats!!! Bloat!!! System Mastery!!! Destroy it all!!!

[SillySymphonies]

Not perfectly happy... I've fallen in love with our current Aasimar
I'm not a fan of the perfectly symmetrical Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic angels.

Couldn't they have made aardlings a sub of aasimar? Since celestial animals is what guardinals are.
According to 1995's Planescape Monstrous Compendium Appendix II, aasimar have "the blood of both humankind and one of the races of the Upper Planes - the rilmani, the eladrins, or the guardinals." So how about:

Concordant aasimar (their 'celestial' ancestors are balanced rilmani of the Neutral plane of the Outlands)
Olympian aasimar (their celestial ancestors are free-spirited eladrins of the Chaotic Good plane of Arborea)
Blessed aasimar / Idyllic ardlings (their celestial ancestors are animalistic guardinals of the Neutral Good plane of Elysium)

[Arkhios]

Think they will do anything to change Ebberon, the high magic steampunk setting?

Eb-erron. Not Ebb-eron.

Also, there's no steam in the punk of Eberron. Only Magic.

[Dr.Samurai]

Eb-erron. Not Ebb-eron.

Also, there's no steam in the punk of Eberron. Only Magic.
Look at JackPhoenix's sig. I think they were poking at that.

[Arkhios]

Look at JackPhoenix's sig. I think they were poking at that.

Pfft. Didn't notice that one! :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

But then I also think D&D focuses waaaaaay too much on "race".

In 5e, this is a side effect of race, subclass, and spell being the only things that are "allowed" to be published freely. New classes are not something made much of. Martials aren't allowed to have anything like the Battle Master's maneuvers spread out to enhance all of them and thus give reason to print more of those.

We do get more feats, but for some reason WotC is hesitant even with those in 5e, despite there being little reason to be.

[False God]

In 5e, this is a side effect of race, subclass, and spell being the only things that are "allowed" to be published freely. New classes are not something made much of. Martials aren't allowed to have anything like the Battle Master's maneuvers spread out to enhance all of them and thus give reason to print more of those.

We do get more feats, but for some reason WotC is hesitant even with those in 5e, despite there being little reason to be.

Well, historically they've been terrible at balancing them and now some people think "trap feats" are proper design. *eyeroll* I can' understand the designers not writing more of a thing they're not very good at.

No, I mean people (players/DMs, not the designers) seem to over focus on the importance of races having specific mechanical representation otherwise they are somehow "not" that race.

[Segev]

Well, historically they've been terrible at balancing them and now some people think "trap feats" are proper design. *eyeroll* I can' understand the designers not writing more of a thing they're not very good at.

No, I mean people (players/DMs, not the designers) seem to over focus on the importance of races having specific mechanical representation otherwise they are somehow "not" that race.

Ah. That, I guess, depends on the race and what you're using to model it.

Does "custom lineage" cover everything from aarakocra to hill giants to redcaps? I would say, "Obviously not," but in the name of discussion would be interested in hearing claims that it does. IT can cover humans, maybe elves and dwarves...

If you believe that anything "custom lineage" can cover is an acceptable thing for PCs to be, and anything it can't, isn't, then we should just do away with races entirely and give everyone the mechanics of "custom lineage." Claim to be whatever race you want as long as the race doesn't obviously get crippled by the rules for "custom lineage."

If, on the other hand, you think that we need more than one racial ruleset to cover different races, it becomes a question of degrees.

In the end, if the "race" has a monster manual entry with particular abilities that are said to represent it being that race, perhaps the PC race should have those abilities. Drow have access to the Drow High Magic feat for this reason - it gates the more potent spells behind a feat and a higher level, and it gives them the supposedly-iconic spell selection. (Whether it's worth a feat or not, and whether it and the race itself are enough, is another question entirely.)

It boils down to just how much you believe racial features matter at all.

[Psyren]

I don't think anyone credibly believes that Custom Lineage covers everything, is the last race folks will need etc. If it was, they wouldn't have nearly the interest in new races that they do. Even Ardling, despite failing to clear the threshold for PHB inclusion, still had 60-69% favorability - not high enough for core, but not too low to throw out completely either.

Custom Lineage does enable concepts that are hard to pull off with other races, like the recent Mewtwo thread, and can be used to emulate familiar races that don't exist in 5e like the Shardmind or Fetchling or Deep Imaskari. But with that said - its appeal will likely be greatly reduced in 1DnD with feats having level requirements now and everyone getting one at first level.

[Segev]

I don't think anyone credibly believes that Custom Lineage covers everything, is the last race folks will need etc. If it was, they wouldn't have nearly the interest in new races that they do. Even Ardling, despite failing to clear the threshold for PHB inclusion, still had 60-69% favorability - not high enough for core, but not too low to throw out completely either.

Custom Lineage does enable concepts that are hard to pull off with other races, like the recent Mewtwo thread, and can be used to emulate familiar races that don't exist in 5e like the Shardmind or Fetchling or Deep Imaskari. But with that said - its appeal will likely be greatly reduced in 1DnD with feats having level requirements now and everyone getting one at first level.

Oh, sure. My point was more that we need races with differing contributions to character stat blocks precisely because, as you say, Custom Lineage does not cover everything. Not to say Custom Lineage is useless.

[False God]

Ah. That, I guess, depends on the race and what you're using to model it.

Does "custom lineage" cover everything from aarakocra to hill giants to redcaps? I would say, "Obviously not," but in the name of discussion would be interested in hearing claims that it does. IT can cover humans, maybe elves and dwarves...

If you believe that anything "custom lineage" can cover is an acceptable thing for PCs to be, and anything it can't, isn't, then we should just do away with races entirely and give everyone the mechanics of "custom lineage." Claim to be whatever race you want as long as the race doesn't obviously get crippled by the rules for "custom lineage."

If, on the other hand, you think that we need more than one racial ruleset to cover different races, it becomes a question of degrees.

In the end, if the "race" has a monster manual entry with particular abilities that are said to represent it being that race, perhaps the PC race should have those abilities. Drow have access to the Drow High Magic feat for this reason - it gates the more potent spells behind a feat and a higher level, and it gives them the supposedly-iconic spell selection. (Whether it's worth a feat or not, and whether it and the race itself are enough, is another question entirely.)

It boils down to just how much you believe racial features matter at all.

I tend to respond in reverse, so going from the bottom up....

I don't think racial stats matter very much. Racial features matter so long as they are unique, interesting and evocative. Being able to breath fire is unique, interesting and evocative of playing a Dragonborn. Having innate infernal magic is unique, interesting and evocative of being a Tiefling. Being good with bows is not unique, interesting and evocative of being an elf. Drow getting access to (but not necessarily choosing to have) Drow-specific magic is unique and interesting and evocative of being a Drow(but less unique because it's basically the Tiefling's shtick too).

I think all the races can be covered under the same ruleset, but I think more energy needs to be put into "racial" features. Dwarves being particularly resilient to poison is fine (I don't really know why they have this? Because they drink a lot? They're part stone?), though it's not terribly interesting or evocative of being a dwarf. IMO the design should generally angle towards active features than passive ones. Can a dwarf place their hands on any rock and learn its history? Maybe! You'll certainly remember it when Stonefist McRockbeard tries it, success or not. You'll probably forget that +2 vs poison though.

Custom Lineage is great for a game that has defined nations and people with unique, interesting and evocative cultures. Wherein an elf may be an outsider no matter how deep their love of the Motherland is and how reflective their abilities are of it's way of life. Playing this character who, to others, is seen as an Elf, but to himself is seen as a Motherlander makes for interesting gameplay. The game and the table will remember when your elf suddenly did this Thing that is normally associated with the Dwarven Motherlanders. This is unique, interesting and evocative to play in a game.

Custom Lineage is a problem for a game that has no cultures. An entire setting where every culture is a melting pot of everything else with no truly defining elements, good or bad, Custom Lineage doesn't make any sense, because everyone should have that as the default. You're an elf raised by frog-men in the city populated by humans but run by Tieflings who serve a Dragonborn king! The table isn't going to care that you get a +1 with spears because of your frog-man upbringing and a +2 to charisma because of your Tiefling overlords. Because everyone gets a +1 to whatever weapon they're good at and a +2 to whatever stat they like because they all come from metropolitan megalopolis' where anyone can be anything.

----
And while I realize that a lot of the above is more a hot take on how D&D lacks culture, that's kinda my point. Races get inserted in place of culture and upbringing, like every elf town is full of exactly identical elves. And it makes the whole thing weird. IF races need biological features, they should be uniquely defining to the race. But moreover, the features that define your elf should come from background and culture, not your biology.

Custom Lineage is at best, the worst solution for a game that desperately needs some defining fantasy-cultural identity aside from actually creating some cultures for those fantasy races to be part of.

[Segev]

And while I realize that a lot of the above is more a hot take on how D&D lacks culture, that's kinda my point. Races get inserted in place of culture and upbringing, like every elf town is full of exactly identical elves. And it makes the whole thing weird. IF races need biological features, they should be uniquely defining to the race. But moreover, the features that define your elf should come from background and culture, not your biology.

I won't disagree with the idea that culture matters, but I do think that biology should matter, too. Otherwise, what's the point of having anything but humans?

[False God]

I won't disagree with the idea that culture matters, but I do think that biology should matter, too. Otherwise, what's the point of having anything but humans?

Unless your biology is "insectoid" or "fish" or something similarly non-human, bipedal humanoids will have far far far more in common than they will ever have different, biologically. Dragonborn are a great example, distinctly non-human physiology, distinctly non-human traits, distinctly non-human mechanical features. Same with Tieflings but less so.

If you can't tell me how elves or dwarves are "biologically distinct" from humans, you can't found a good argument for them having biology-based mechanical differences. If that causes you to think they might as well not even exist, well that's on you.

Keep in mind that the races came first as elements of stories and myth, and the stats came second to represent those things in game.

[Segev]

Unless your biology is "insectoid" or "fish" or something similarly non-human, bipedal humanoids will have far far far more in common than they will ever have different, biologically. Dragonborn are a great example, distinctly non-human physiology, distinctly non-human traits, distinctly non-human mechanical features. Same with Tieflings but less so.

If you can't tell me how elves or dwarves are "biologically distinct" from humans, you can't found a good argument for them having biology-based mechanical differences. If that causes you to think they might as well not even exist, well that's on you.

Keep in mind that the races came first as elements of stories and myth, and the stats came second to represent those things in game.

"That's on you" isn't really a sound argument, here. Races have had distinct mechanics which speak to their biological differences in the games. You're the one saying, "well, those shouldn't be present, because I don't think they're biologically justified," so it's you who has to defend his position if you believe there should be no mechanical difference between an elf, human, dwarf, orc, half-orc, half-elf, etc. Should we just have "humanoid" as a race, with small and medium as options of size? Or should we eliminate that difference, too, and have only Tiny, Medium, Large, Huge, Gargantuan, with all humanoids (to encompass elves, dwarves, orcs, humans, and hybrids between them) being Medium, just some are described as smaller than others?

You can say, "No, no, I am not arguing for that, and if you think so, that's on you," all you want, but you're the one who's made the claim that there aren't the biological differences. You don't get to turn around and say, "Well, if my assertion that there aren't biological differences plus my assertion that all racial traits should be solely biological means that you can't come up with biological differences sufficient to make these races distinct, mechanically, that's on you." Well, I guess you CAN turn around and say it, but it's not exactly a sound argument.

If you do not mean that elves, humans, dwarves, orcs, and mixes between them should all be mechanically indistinguishable, what do you mean? What should mechanically distinguish them? And if they aren't mechanically distinguished, what should distinguish them aside from culture, since culture and race, if there are no serious enough biological differences between the races/species/whatever to warrant mechanical distinction, will not even be remotely related to one another?

[Joe the Rat]

Custom Lineage is pretty much just Variant Human with an option for Darkvision.

You could make Custom Lineage work to build lineages, if there was a pool of "Lineage feats" that could be brought to bear. A package of 2-3 traits or abilities to reflect aparticular type of being. fey, construct, trickster, durable, animalistic, draconic, fiendish, celestial, etc. This would work better as a building tool than a weird family tree clutch. You could get something like an existing lineage or monster, but it's not a perfect match. That's where DM finesse and finagle fits in.

[Psyren]

I don't think racial stats matter very much. Racial features matter so long as they are unique, interesting and evocative. Being able to breath fire is unique, interesting and evocative of playing a Dragonborn. Having innate infernal magic is unique, interesting and evocative of being a Tiefling. Being good with bows is not unique, interesting and evocative of being an elf. Drow getting access to (but not necessarily choosing to have) Drow-specific magic is unique and interesting and evocative of being a Drow(but less unique because it's basically the Tiefling's shtick too).

Definitely agreed - and while the Drow and Tiefling appear to have a lot in common on the surface, I can readily imagine a party containing both where the Drow sneers at the Tiefling because he can see further down the dark hallway they're sneaking down, while she smirks because she can better survive the poison trap on the door at the end.


I think all the races can be covered under the same ruleset, but I think more energy needs to be put into "racial" features. Dwarves being particularly resilient to poison is fine (I don't really know why they have this? Because they drink a lot? They're part stone?), though it's not terribly interesting or evocative of being a dwarf. IMO the design should generally angle towards active features than passive ones. Can a dwarf place their hands on any rock and learn its history? Maybe! You'll certainly remember it when Stonefist McRockbeard tries it, success or not. You'll probably forget that +2 vs poison though.

Speaking personally, I'll definitely remember it when the dwarf in my party touches a stone wall and tells me exactly how many troglodytes are on the other side of it.

Regarding your question, 1e* said this about Dwarves: "{Similarly,} dwarves have exceptional constitutional strength, with regard to toxic substances, ingested or injected. Therefore , all dwarven characters make saving throws against poison in the same manner and with the same bonuses as they do against magical attacks". Seems like it was tied to the boozing but it's unclear.

*AD&D, not Basic


Custom Lineage is great for a game that has defined nations and people with unique, interesting and evocative cultures. Wherein an elf may be an outsider no matter how deep their love of the Motherland is and how reflective their abilities are of it's way of life. Playing this character who, to others, is seen as an Elf, but to himself is seen as a Motherlander makes for interesting gameplay. The game and the table will remember when your elf suddenly did this Thing that is normally associated with the Dwarven Motherlanders. This is unique, interesting and evocative to play in a game.

Custom Lineage is a problem for a game that has no cultures. An entire setting where every culture is a melting pot of everything else with no truly defining elements, good or bad, Custom Lineage doesn't make any sense, because everyone should have that as the default. You're an elf raised by frog-men in the city populated by humans but run by Tieflings who serve a Dragonborn king! The table isn't going to care that you get a +1 with spears because of your frog-man upbringing and a +2 to charisma because of your Tiefling overlords. Because everyone gets a +1 to whatever weapon they're good at and a +2 to whatever stat they like because they all come from metropolitan megalopolis' where anyone can be anything.

----
And while I realize that a lot of the above is more a hot take on how D&D lacks culture, that's kinda my point. Races get inserted in place of culture and upbringing, like every elf town is full of exactly identical elves. And it makes the whole thing weird. IF races need biological features, they should be uniquely defining to the race. But moreover, the features that define your elf should come from background and culture, not your biology.

Custom Lineage is at best, the worst solution for a game that desperately needs some defining fantasy-cultural identity aside from actually creating some cultures for those fantasy races to be part of.

Custom Lineage has nothing to do with culture. None of the (current) racial entries do, nor should they. Culture is dependent on society and therefore setting, and racial entries outside of setting books are intended to be setting agnostic. Saying "elven culture is X" without specifying where that elf is from is ludicrous - Ravnica elves don't have the same culture as Eberron elves, who don't have the same culture as Faerun elves, who don't have the same culture as Krynn elves etc. Despite all being elves, the societal forces ultimately shaping them are completely different from one another.

[Anonymouswizard]

if you can't tell me how elves or dwarves are "biologically distinct" from humans, you can't found a good argument for them having biology-based mechanical differences. If that causes you to think they might as well not even exist, well that's on you.

Before I got Volo's I was seriously considering a setting where elves where full blown catfolk. Of course the Tabaxi do both the catfolk and 'agile forest race' niches better than elves do, so they swiftly replaced elves.

Although that setting also sprang out of the idea that 'of all the races only humans domesticate', it goes on a bit of a wild tangent (for example orcs are 'dark humans', and have quite a lot of pig breeds).

[Klaus Teufel]

There's not a huge amount of design space left there. You've already got:

Cats (including just about any feline subtype)
Lions, specifically
Elephants
Bulls
Birds (including just about any avian subtype)
Owls, specifically
Ravens, specifically
Frogs
Fish
Lizards
Turtles
Hippos
Insects (kinda)
Snakes (kinda)
Horses (kinda)
Squirrels (kinda)

You forgot rabbits (Harengon)

[KorvinStarmast]

I won't disagree with the idea that culture matters, but I do think that biology should matter, too. Otherwise, what's the point of having anything but humans? What indeed is the point? :smallcool: The game works fine for an all human party. :smallsmile: Also, the lighting rules begin to work as intended, or at least that's what we noted when we tried it out.

Custom Lineage is pretty much just Variant Human with an option for Darkvision. Hmm, it is also a way to cheese one's Point Buy build into an 18 at level 1. (With a half feat and a +2 in something) :smallbiggrin: And to do a little trading of proficiencies to customize the character.
Regarding your question, 1e* said this about Dwarves:
"{Similarly,} dwarves have exceptional constitutional strength, with regard to toxic substances, ingested or injected. Therefore, all dwarven characters make saving throws against poison in the same manner and with the same bonuses as they do against magical attacks". Seems like it was tied to the boozing but it's unclear.
*AD&D, not Basic Depending on the DM, too much booze becomes toxic, which is how I think the 'hard drinkers" thing for dwarves comes from, but that's a guess.

Saying "elven culture is X" without specifying where that elf is from is ludicrous - Ravnica elves don't have the same culture as Eberron elves, who don't have the same culture as Faerun elves, who don't have the same culture as Krynn elves etc. Despite all being elves, the societal forces ultimately shaping them are completely different from one another. Yeah, if you want culture to have a role in the game.
Heck, as far back as Greyhawk and AD&D 1e, EGG had wood elves, high elves, and grey elves all fill different cultural roles, and he had the xenophobic elves (from the Valley of the Mage region) as a separate culture. FR elf cultural variations go as far back as AD&D 1e also, IIRC.
In original WoG, there were five kinds of humans each with their own language: Oerdians, Sulois, Baklunish, Flannae, and Olman. (Not sure when Rhennee were added, but I think those are the raft people of the Nyr Div). (I am AFB, I'd need to double check the when ...)

In SCAG you've got a variety of barbarian tribes and nationalities that get some treatment ... culture can be an important part of a campaign.


You forgot rabbits (Harengon)

Meat's back on the menu, boys! :smallcool:

[Segev]

What indeed is the point? :smallcool: The game works fine for an all human party. :smallsmile: Also, the lighting rules begin to work as intended, or at least that's what we noted when we tried it out.

That said, is it a good argument for eliminating all but humans from the game, and maybe allowing humans to have green skin, pointy ears, short-and-squat stature, tusks, horns, or big gnoses?

[Bane's Wolf]

Yeah, if you want culture to have a role in the game.
Heck, as far back as Greyhawk and AD&D 1e, EGG had wood elves, high elves, and grey elves all fill different cultural roles, and he had the xenophobic elves (from the Valley of the Mage region) as a separate culture. FR elf cultural variations go as far back as AD&D 1e also, IIRC.
In original WoG, there were five kinds of humans each with their own language: Oerdians, Sulois, Baklunish, Flannae, and Olman. (Not sure when Rhennee were added, but I think those are the raft people of the Nyr Div). (I am AFB, I'd need to double check the when ...)

Kobolt press just released the first playtest packet for Project Black Flag
Part of character creation is to choose your Lineage, and your Heritage.
Lineage is essentially your biology, giving you the aspects of your "race"
Heritage is essentially the culture you grew up in.

I like this. Splitting these 2 concepts apart makes it easier to discuss, and makes a very clear distinction between "nature" and "nurture", as it were. :smallwink:

For the very creative players, it also opens the door to play an elf, raised by a warrior orc tribe, without a huge set of discussions with their GM

I think DnD could be improved by including something similar

[KorvinStarmast]

That said, is it a good argument for eliminating all but humans from the game, and maybe allowing humans to have green skin, pointy ears, short-and-squat stature, tusks, horns, or big gnoses? Horns? No. That aesthetic on the tiefling is {censored} but I've been on that rant before. Not gonna repeat myself.

is it a good argument for eliminating all but humans from the game
Not what I said, that's what you said. Please don't do that.
As to noses: my current Rune Night fighter already has a big nose, so what's your point?

[Psyren]

There's not a huge amount of design space left there. You've already got:

Cats (including just about any feline subtype)
Lions, specifically
Elephants
Bulls
Birds (including just about any avian subtype)
Owls, specifically
Ravens, specifically
Frogs
Fish
Lizards
Turtles
Hippos
Insects (kinda)
Snakes (kinda)
Horses (kinda)
Squirrels (kinda)

What does that leave?

Dogs? (They already kinda exist in the lore as the Gnoll race, although we don't have them as a playable PC race yet.)
Sharks? (Again, they already kinda exist in the lore as Sahuagin, but not a playable race yet.)
Rhinos?
Giraffes?
Apes?
Foxes?
Raccoons?
Deer/Elk?
Etc.


As you mentioned, canines (Dogs/Wolves/Foxes/Hyenas) are a pretty gaping hole, as are Ratfolk/Nezumi and Deer/Elk.

Sharks would actually be Adaro from prior editions.

Other fairly iconic ones you don't have are Gators/Crocodiles (though you could refluff Lizardfolk to get there probably), Pigs/Boars (you could maybe get there via Orcs) and Bears.

[Segev]

Horns? No. That aesthetic on the tiefling is {censored} but I've been on that rant before. Not gonna repeat myself.

Not what I said, that's what you said. Please don't do that.
As to noses: my current Rune Night fighter already has a big nose, so what's your point?

I didn't say you meant it as such an argument. I'm saying that, whether you mean it to or not, your logic supports an argument for making humans the only playable race/species, and just making the other races/species cosmetic variations on human.

And I spelled it "gnoses" for a reason. :smallwink:

[Damon_Tor]

If you can't tell me how elves or dwarves are "biologically distinct" from humans, you can't found a good argument for them having biology-based mechanical differences.

Dwarves are an all-male species that reproduces via symbiosis with a species of yeast. Their young grow in fungal cysts that form in the cesspools beneath their settlements. The life cycle of the yeast is completed when the dwarf infants climb from the cesspools where they are born to the dwarf settlement, then drink from the vats of fermenting beer: the fungal spores use their beards to migrate from the cesspools into the vats.

I dunno, seems pretty distinct to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

I didn't say you meant it as such an argument. I'm saying that, whether you mean it to or not, your logic supports an argument for making humans the only playable race/species, and just making the other races/species cosmetic variations on human.
Only if you torture the logic.

And I spelled it "gnoses" for a reason. :smallwink: The size of the nose is irrelevant.

[Segev]

Only if you torture the logic. Untrue! I have pointed out why.

The size of the nose is irrelevant.I don't gnow, it seems to keep coming up.

[False God]

Dwarves are an all-male species that reproduces via symbiosis with a species of yeast. Their young grow in fungal cysts that form in the cesspools beneath their settlements. The life cycle of the yeast is completed when the dwarf infants climb from the cesspools where they are born to the dwarf settlement, then drink from the vats of fermenting beer: the fungal spores use their beards to migrate from the cesspools into the vats.

I dunno, seems pretty distinct to me.

Yes, yes it does. Bit like Orks but with a beer theme. Or like oldschool Transformers.

I mean, if we go by the usual D&D lore, all races(except humans because we're not going to talk about that) were created by their gods, they reproduce with one male and one female in the usual fade-to-black sort of way, they all require generally the same kind of food and they all need water, though their diets vary. They're all 2-armed, 2-legged, 1-headed, single-torsoed fleshy creatures with the same arrangement of face-holes, heck, some of them can even interbreed! Biologically, most of the races in D&D aren't that different. Even Tieflings and Drow aren't that different, their physical and magical differences stem from magical modification, otherwise they'd just be humans and elves. (wait, if a human and tiefling make another tiefling, and a human and an elf make a half-elf, what does an elf and a tiefling make?)

If elves could change their skin color like a chameleon, or dwarves could regenerate lost limbs by applying some raw bread dough, or orcs could photosynthesize, I mean THERE is some basis for real biological differences!

As it is, I just don't see much difference, and I don't see the need to play up the difference to justify having the choices. Let the player emphasize how Dwarfy they are. The choices being "samey" mechanically doesn't matter because the choices aren't there for the sake of the mechanics. The choices are there for the sake of roleplay. Differentiation between the choices should focus on how a dwarf behaves differently than an elf, not how a dwarf plays differently than an elf.

But again, the game can't really write in behavioral differences that aren't innately part of the species(which I am not advocating for) without having a core culture to back them up. "Generic fantasy" hurts more than it helps with defining these races. D&D really should pick one of its worlds and say "Thats the world we're basing this all on." It could even justify mechanical bonuses that way. Without that kind of backing, yeah the races are kinda samey and you could take them or leave them and it doesn't make a lick of difference one way or the other except visually.

[Anonymouswizard]

Can't one of the most physically weird races interbreed with practically anyone? '**** changelings, they're scary as hell but great in the sack!'

Or if you're a bit more old school just make the same joke with dragons.

Most D&D races/lineages/ancestries are probably closer to human subspecies as in Shadowrun than full blown separate species. Which makes mongrelmen amusingly redundant with humans.