OneD&D UA - THE CLERIC AND REVISED SPECIES

[Kane0]

There are 13 classes, 9 races species, and 13 backgrounds (not including their variants or sub whatever (races species, classes, what have you) in players handbook alone.

Calling out for symmetry is hardly reasonable. If symmetry was intended, why are the options asymmetrically at odds?

Rule of threes?

[GooeyChewie]

My point with the "rule" comment is that Aasimar are seen as Tieflings' thematic opposites because they've been repeatedly juxtaposed in the past, a tradition that got broken in 4e anyway. There's no fundamental/inalienable reason for them to keep doing that beyond tradition.

It's the other way around. Aasimar and Tieflings have been repeatedly juxtaposed in the past because they are thematic opposites. One is celestial-themed while the other is fiend-themed. Personally I think theme and tradition are good reasons to juxtapose these two races by making sure that they appear in the same book. I'm not saying WotC has to do it that way, or that I think they will do it that way, only that its enough for me (and others) to think the overall One D&D product would be better if they did do it that way.

I know and I addressed that. They likely won't be removing features from any of the MPMM races for a long while, because if they do then that will oppose their backwards compatibility goals (see the 1DD Orc being identical to its MPMM version, and the 1DD Goliath being the MPMM Goliath Plus, rather than having anything taken away.)

But we're okay with new Dragonborns that oppose backwards compatibility with Fizban's? WotC has been pretty inconsistent (to put it politely) in regards to how they approach backwards compatibility. I don't expect it to amount to much other than being able to run OD&D characters in existing 5e officially published adventures/campaigns.

[Psyren]

It's the other way around. Aasimar and Tieflings have been repeatedly juxtaposed in the past because they are thematic opposites. One is celestial-themed while the other is fiend-themed. Personally I think theme and tradition are good reasons to juxtapose these two races by making sure that they appear in the same book. I'm not saying WotC has to do it that way, or that I think they will do it that way, only that its enough for me (and others) to think the overall One D&D product would be better if they did do it that way.

Sure, celestial and fiendish are opposites, but you can have other celestial and fiendish races besides Tieflings and Aasimar though. Back in 3.5, Dragon Compendium introduced the Diabolus race for example, and I don't recall everyone raising a stink back then. Similarly, Book of Vile Darkness introduced the Vashar and the Jerren - while borderline cartoonish in their presentation, they showed that Tieflings have never been the be-all and end-all of this idea, so I don't see why Aasimar have to be either. Ardlings are fine.

But we're okay with new Dragonborns that oppose backwards compatibility with Fizban's?

Yes? A new core book including new Dragonborn is a given. The ones in Fizbans were variants at best (and even outright stated to be such, FToD pg. 9).

[False God]

I still don't understand why Ardling aren't an Aasimar subrace. Like, they're half-breed celestials...but they have animal heads. Sounds like a subrace to me.

It also strikes me as a bit odd because when I think "good/evil aligned creatures with animal heads" I think Baphomet a heck of a lot faster than Guardinals. Which is so say I'd actually have a lot less objection to Ardlings is they were evil/demon-themed than good/celestial themed.

And at the end of the day, there are still a dozen better options for animal people, like can we have Hengeyokai please?

Really this all just strikes me as a "we need to make things we can copyright!" move, which rubs me all sorts of wrong.

[Psyren]

Really this all just strikes me as a "we need to make things we can copyright!" move, which rubs me all sorts of wrong.

I think it's a safe bet every race they put in the PHB will be in the SRD just like they always have been, so I'm not buying the "copyright" notion.

[False God]

I think it's a safe bet every race they put in the PHB will be in the SRD just like they always have been, so I'm not buying the "copyright" notion.

Tieflings are in the SRD, but are also explicitly WOTC copyright under their new look since 4E.

While you can certainly make D&D material with stuff in the SRD, you cannot, for example, write your own fantasy novel that includes tieflings, but you certainly can do so with elves, orcs, dwarves and their various half-breeds, as well as "half demon" or "demon blooded" characters, you just can't use the word and design of "tieflings".

The older design of "a human with a tail and horns" wasn't something they could copyright. The same is true for Aasimar. A "human with golden hair and nice skin" isn't something they can copyright.

*Please note I'm not going to argue copyright/trademark nitpicking, ya'll know what I mean.

[GooeyChewie]

Sure, celestial and fiendish are opposites, but you can have other celestial and fiendish races besides Tieflings and Aasimar though. Back in 3.5, Dragon Compendium introduced the Diabolus race for example, and I don't recall everyone raising a stink back then. Similarly, Book of Vile Darkness introduced the Vashar and the Jerren - while borderline cartoonish in their presentation, they showed that Tieflings have never been the be-all and end-all of this idea, so I don't see why Aasimar have to be either. Ardlings are fine.

I think we've gotten topics cross here. I wasn't saying anything at all about Ardlings. All I was saying is that as thematic opposites, it would make sense for WotC to have Tieflings and Aasimar presented at the same time. And if Aasimar needs to be pushed to a splat book, I'm perfectly good with Tiefling getting pushed to the same splat book. (And if you really want Vashar and/or Jerren, maybe they belong in the same splat book? I'm not super-familiar with them.)

Yes? A new core book including new Dragonborn is a given. The ones in Fizbans were variants at best (and even outright stated to be such, FToD pg. 9).

I don't see why new Dragonborn would be a given and Aasimar would not be a given? Or why it's okay to overwrite recent Dragonborn variants but not recent Aasimar variants? But whatever. I'm not clamoring for Aasimar to be a core race. I'm more pointing out that the notion of backwards-compatibility has not been particularly well-defined.

[Psyren]

I think we've gotten topics cross here. I wasn't saying anything at all about Ardlings. All I was saying is that as thematic opposites, it would make sense for WotC to have Tieflings and Aasimar presented at the same time. And if Aasimar needs to be pushed to a splat book, I'm perfectly good with Tiefling getting pushed to the same splat book. (And if you really want Vashar and/or Jerren, maybe they belong in the same splat book? I'm not super-familiar with them.)

What I'm saying is that Tieflings and Aasimar being (polar) opposites that need to be in the same book is entirely artificial and not endemic to either species.

I don't see why new Dragonborn would be a given and Aasimar would not be a given? Or why it's okay to overwrite recent Dragonborn variants but not recent Aasimar variants?

There are no Aasimar "variants." There is just the one race, that has been updated a few times in the editions lifetime, and them choosing to leave it alone is reasonable.

[sambojin]

I like the aasimar/ tiefling polar opposites in background ancestry, but I quite like aardlings as well. I actually wouldn't mind if their were still exalted/ idyllic/ heavenly aardlings either. Just extra subraces for them. Maybe with a blurb that they can also be infernal or fey'ish aardlings in their backstory, to cover every niche.

Having 3-6 subraces of each core race can only be a good thing. I like how they did elves. I like how they did goliaths (although they could be balanced a little better). I like how they did dragonborn in this UA.

I don't like how they did dwarves in the original UA (the tremor-sense is a great idea, having only 1 type of dwarf isn't). But aardlings and tieflings are fine, with aardlings actually being the more interesting of the two, due to interesting interactions with class mechanics. So we just need aasimar and we're set.

Having two species with divine or infernal (or even fey'ish) origins tends to flesh the world out better, rather than thin it down. Makes it easier on players and DMs to make their worlds come alive, where it's not so all-or-nothing on "yeah, an angel bonked my mum, so now I'm here all celestial'y like butchering bad(?)guys" or "but I'm a good tiefling(!?), with a long-winded backstory to explain why". Shades of grey and gold and blood-red in between is never a bad thing for world building.

(Remember how I like aasimar? They do tend to fit into the 3.5e pally "super-good" mould for character building a little too much imo. Sometimes you need that. Sometimes you can subvert that. Sometimes you can use that as a basis for reflection or characterisation. But having another vaguely divine/ infernal/ something species doesn't take away from that. If anything, it shows the differences and breadth of species and backstories and reasons for adventuring, making an aasimar's more unique in the flavour-pot, not less)

((I also think that including aasimar, aardlings that are divine/ fey/ infernal, and tieflings in core 1dnd's PHB would also give a really good reason on the "not all dwarves are underground masters"/ "not all orcs are evil" kind of thing. Showing shades of grey in between even the "higher/ lower/ side powers" and their background and reasons and outlook makes it a very nice building block for all the other races/ species/ subs-of-them to be whatever the player wants them to be as well, appropriate to the setting or their own RP wishes. While it should be mentioned explicitly, showing a range of things in between what are normally polar opposites, makes for a good range for every other species as well))