D&D (2024) Thoughts on the revised Ardling?

[Corinnguard]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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!]

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]

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

 

[Incenjucar]

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]

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.