D&D (2024) All about Ardlings

How animalistic are ardlings?



log in or register to remove this ad



One set of mechanics for any animal you like. Without such, you would need racial traits for every kind of animal.

Note that aardlings exist in addition to all those other options.
Not every animal you like, just any animal that represents a 'virtuous association'. Throughout human history, certain animals were associated with a particular virtue (any trait or quality that is deemed to be morally good). So it's likely that the number of animals with virtuous associations is going to be small in number.
 

Not every animal you like, just any animal that represents a 'virtuous association'. Throughout human history, certain animals were associated with a particular virtue (any trait or quality that is deemed to be morally good). So it's likely that the number of animals with virtuous associations is going to be small in number.
I would say the opposite- I can’t think of any animal offhand that doesn’t have a virtuous association in some culture somewhere, especially if we include fantasy cultures.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Not every animal you like, just any animal that represents a 'virtuous association'. Throughout human history, certain animals were associated with a particular virtue (any trait or quality that is deemed to be morally good). So it's likely that the number of animals with virtuous associations is going to be small in number.
It's phrased in an extremely open-ended fashion, which leaves room for anyone who wants to make their case. Looking across human cultures, a case can be made for any animal a person wants.
 

Not every animal you like, just any animal that represents a 'virtuous association'.
That is a meaningless qualifier. Every animal may well have been heralded as some sort of virtuous at some point somewhere.

If there's something to pick a fight over, it's at WotC going 'here's an animal head, now you don't need any beast races with mechanics that would actually have something to do with the animal in question'.
 
Last edited:

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
That is a meaningless qualifier. Every animal may well have been heralded as some sort of virtuous at some point somewhere.

If there's something to pick a fight over, it's at WotC going 'here's an animal head, now you don't need any beast races with mechanics that would actually have something to do with the animal in question'.
given that they are made for the furry demographic that is unlikely to bother them in the slightest as they are not particularly bothered about biological accuracy
 

If there's something to pick a fight over, it's at WotC going 'here's an animal head, now you don't need any beast races with mechanics that would actually have something to do with the animal in question'.

And I still disagree that this meant to be that. Between the existence of guardinals, the similarities to real mythological figures, and... well, the text of the entry itself, it's pretty clear that the ardlings' connection to animals is symbolic, not representative. This isn't an anthropomorphic animal race, and its existence doesn't preclude the existence of an animal race. In fact, there are multiple such races that already exist.

Is it possible that there won't be an animal race in the new PHB? Sure. There wasn't one in the last once unless you count dragonborn. There also wasn't a giant race or any number of racial wants someone might prefer. That doesn't mean that the ardling is somehow the thing that is holding WotC back from making that inclusion, nor does it mean that the ardling needs to be changed so that it is that race. In fact, I'd very much rather it wasn't.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
I just want an option besides flying...

images.jpeg
 

Remove ads

Top