D&D (2024) D&D Survey Results and The Future of Playtest | Unearthed Arcana

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
No, of course not.

I am suggesting that there's a sizeable number of D&D fans who are anti-furry, that there is overlap between furry and queer culture (and similarly overlap between anti-furry and anti-queer arguments), and that some of the reaction to Ardlings is due to this factor. It's obviously not the whole picture, but without accusing any single person, I think when you look at the reaction to something like Ardlings vs. Goliaths, it's clear to me there's a more vehement dislike for the whole concept. You could call it something like the "anti-pink hair faction"-- there's always been some people in the D&D community who want to gatekeep it from people who are just a little too weird for their tastes.
From the video as far as I remember the issue with Ardlings was that they made the approval numbers but the associated comments were generally "Meh!".
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hoping aasimar makes it into the PHB. Or at least the DMG.

They can literally just take the original Ardling stats and call it an Aasimar, done, it made a great Aasimar, I like it better then even the VGtM Aasimar. If they want the Goliath in to balance species options, then the Aasimar makes sense to Balance the Tiefling.
 

My guess is that it started as a desire to have a thematic counterpoint to the Tiefling in the PHB.

Once they decided to add (back) in the "Choose your Planar Origin" aspect, they wanted an "Aasimar" type counterpart that chooses between Upper Planar options like the Tiefling choose between Lower Planar options, but they'd only just recently reworked the Aasimar in Monsters of the Multiverse and changing Aasimar "subrace" options to "Pick an Upper Plane" might mean losing the cool "Fallen" Aasimar variant. So they decided to tie Aasimar more explicitly to Angels (rather than Celestials as a whole) and created the Ardlings to pick up the ties to the rest of the Celestial races, then made the Ardlings more "bestial" to help differentiate them from their Aasimar cousins, as well as to represent ties to more "bestial" Celestials like Guardinals, Hound Archons, etc.

But, rather than seeing the Ardling as another type of planetouched like Tieflings, people fixated on the "animal person" aspect and saw them more as a unified Aarakocra/Tabaxi/etc. framework, and so that's the direction the design team drifted in as well, ditching the broader Upper Planar themes and tying them specifically to the Beastlands for the second pass.

Presumably, at some point, "animal person" became more core to the Ardling than "celestial planetouched", and thus it stopped serving the role they had intended it to in their initial design, so they decided to pull it and recalibrate.


I mean that they wanted multiple options to choose between for that "big guy" visual archetype.

Fallen Aasimar are still an option the way Gem Dragonborn are still an option even though a Drahonborn species (new way to stat the PHB Dragonborn species) is in the playtest for One D&D. So doing a PHB Aasimar doesn't negate the Fallen/Protector/Scourge Aasimar, anymore then PHB Dragonborn negate Gem/Metallic/Chromatic Dragonborn from Treasury or PHB Tieflings negate Archdevil Tieflings from MToF.
 

Fallen Aasimar are still an option the way Gem Dragonborn are still an option even though a Drahonborn species (new way to stat the PHB Dragonborn species) is in the playtest for One D&D. So doing a PHB Aasimar doesn't negate the Fallen/Protector/Scourge Aasimar, anymore then PHB Dragonborn negate Gem/Metallic/Chromatic Dragonborn from Treasury or PHB Tieflings negate Archdevil Tieflings from MToF.
I get that, but I was talking primarily about what would be in the "core" race/species write-up.

The Protector/Scourge/Fallen options have been part of the core Aasimar since they officially debuted in 5e. Metallic/Chromatic/Gem Dragonborn and Archdevil Tieflings were variant options added later.
 

I get that, but I was talking primarily about what would be in the "core" race/species write-up.

The Protector/Scourge/Fallen options have been part of the core Aasimar since they officially debuted in 5e. Metallic/Chromatic/Gem Dragonborn and Archdevil Tieflings were variant options added later.

No they weren't because the official debut of Aasimars was in the DMG, where they were more similar to 2014 PHB Tieflings.
 

Listening to the video a few things become clear.

1. They wanted to make it very, very, very clear they do not ignore feed back in thr feed back bubbles.
2. It sounds like the Ardling will end up in Planescape like I said, but the Goliath is so popular they might not put it into the Giant book as I expected, but keep it for the PHB instead.
3. The Cleric will likely only under go minor changes from this point forward
4. The next UA in April is going to be much bigger, so I expect it will have more then just the Martial Classes and Weapons, and related feats. The Mystery is what those things will be beyond new feats and a tweeked glossary.
 

Clint_L

Hero
No, of course not.

I am suggesting that there's a sizeable number of D&D fans who are anti-furry, that there is overlap between furry and queer culture (and similarly overlap between anti-furry and anti-queer arguments), and that some of the reaction to Ardlings is due to this factor. It's obviously not the whole picture, but without accusing any single person, I think when you look at the reaction to something like Ardlings vs. Goliaths, it's clear to me there's a more vehement dislike for the whole concept. You could call it something like the "anti-pink hair faction"-- there's always been some people in the D&D community who want to gatekeep it from people who are just a little too weird for their tastes.
Wait, what? I don't like aardlings so now I might have a problem with queer culture? I mean, you're not accusing any single person, but just throwing it out there that it's a possibility? Well, that's nice.

Lots of us have explained why we didn't like aardlings in great detail, but I'll do it again. The first version felt confused and was stepping on the toes of aasimar (a species I generally dislike, but they are already established and have plenty of fans). The second version feels generic and uninspired, and steps on the toes of many already established species (aarakocra, tabaxi, lizard folk, tortles, kenku, and so on). From a design perspective, I am not sure what problem they solve. The idea seems half-baked, like WotC wanted to add something new to the PHB and figured generic animal people would be a safe choice.

Had they come at it with more of an Island of Dr. Moreau angle or something I would have been more receptive. Or maybe a lycanthrope angle.
 

They can literally just take the original Ardling stats and call it an Aasimar, done, it made a great Aasimar, I like it better then even the VGtM Aasimar. If they want the Goliath in to balance species options, then the Aasimar makes sense to Balance the Tiefling.
Mechanically I prefer the motm aasimar by far to the aardlings from either playtest.
 


Clint_L

Hero
They can literally just take the original Ardling stats and call it an Aasimar, done, it made a great Aasimar, I like it better then even the VGtM Aasimar. If they want the Goliath in to balance species options, then the Aasimar makes sense to Balance the Tiefling.
What about people who already play aasimar and love them as angel people? It's definitely not my thing, but wouldn't that kind of undermine their whole character fantasy?
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top