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

[Tales and Chronicles]

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]

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

 

[Frozen_Heart]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

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]

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.