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

[Micah Sweet]

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 chose between Upper Planar options like the Tiefling chose between Lower Planar options, but as they'd only just recently reworked the Aasimar in Monsters of the Multiverse (and possibly to avoid losing the cool "Fallen" Aasimar variation), they decided to tie Aasimar more explicitly to Angels (rather than Celestials as a whole), created the Ardlings to pick up the ties to the rest of the Celestial races, and 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 broad Upper Planar themes and tying them specifically to the Beastlands.

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.

So pretty much just asthetics then. A bit disappointing.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

They are part of the righteous Tolkien branch of the tree, and as such are assumed default options.

OK, but if, as stated, every archetype needs two choices, where are our not-elf elves or not-dwarf dwarves?

I don't think it's a good rationale, but if it's one that they're already using, where is the evidence of it?

 

[Scribe]

OK, but if, as stated, every archetype needs two choices, where are our not-elf elves or not-dwarf dwarves?

I don't think it's a good rationale, but if it's one that they're already using, where is the evidence of it?

I'm not sure a not Elf Elf can exist, there was a thread around here once, but I would argue its Aasimar.

Not Dwarf Dwarf, is going to fall into various options, but it's tropes are very defined as well.

 

[Clint_L]

Orcs are still beefy and brawly, and they wanted a second one like that.

Too interchangeable! But that can be fixed by making Orcs green, as intended by nature.

 

[Clint_L]

OK, but if, as stated, every archetype needs two choices, where are our not-elf elves or not-dwarf dwarves?

A) humans B) gnomes

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Too interchangeable! But that can be fixed by making Orcs green, as intended by nature.

So treants and orcs can fill the same niche! At last!

 

[Micah Sweet]

So treants and orcs can fill the same niche! At last!

Now some kind of tree-folk heritage would definitely be a good contrast.

 

[Scribe]

Now some kind of tree-folk heritage would definitely be a good contrast.

Look up the PF2 race options.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I have heard some players complain that they want to play a big beefy type, but they thought that orcs/half-orcs had too much racist baggage in their mind. I imagine that putting Goliaths in the Players Handbook are so that those players have a core option available.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

So pretty much just asthetics then. A bit disappointing.

The two have different abilities so they would not be the same.