When I'm playing an unfamiliar race in Dungeons and Dragons, I rely on information pulled from various sources in previous editions. The lore of most playable races in 5e is significantly lacking without doing so, and retcons introduced in 5e only seem to make the problem worse. Many of them simply feel generic, shoved in so that players can play "something that looks and acts like this!" rather than something with a pre-existing culture in a setting.
Definitely not letting WotC off the hook, but most Players only ever play themselves (or rather, how they view themselves). Few and far between are the Players that look at race and background as more than an aesthetic.
I feel that too. And while some players don't know any other ray to RP, and we can show them how fun it is to jump out of the comfort zone, some other times it's a conscious decision. When that's the case, to each their own, but I can't help thinking they are missing out on a very unique experience
I mainly just read dnd lore, but maybe Ardlings should have been humans transformed into hybrids due to a cult or mad scientist, or maybe you did it to yourself & you gotta wrestle with this new form. But I agree they should use unique races more, I rather be a strange spider creature with multiple legs or a centaur who has to navigate human cities because it’s different.
I'm a year late to this but I do feel the need to say that this isn't a new 5e and beyond phenomenon. I've been recreating all of the old races for personal use in my 5e games and what I've found is that once you go deep enough into the rabbit hole you start uncovering things from way back like the Voadkyn, who, in 2e, only existed to be friends with wood elves and shoot arrows good. In 3.5e there's a lot of really interesting concepts like the Slyth, Xeph, and Neraphim but they all just kind of sit in their own corner of the world with no reason to interact with the other races than chance meetings. Then in 4e you have weird things like the Dragonborn having their Mewtwo Strikes Back story beats stripped from them to just have them be generic dragon people. Also the inclusion of the Mul who, despite having amazing potential for worldbuilding and character hooks, were given the personality of a sand bags and when they were freed form their bad situation they all basically just collectively decided to stand around and kick dirt. It's kind of sad and makes me think that the "you all meet in a tavern" trope might be a symptom of something much bigger because the playables aren't even given a reason to go outside most of the time.
One thing I didn't like that Wizards did is removing specific racial ability bonuses, now they're like "just put the +2 and +1 anywhere you want". Having specific ability bonuses shows you a good idea of the average member of that races abilities. Half-orcs have a +2 Strength and +1 Constitution showing that the average member of that race is physically stronger and hardier than the average Human, which they are. Meanwhile Owlins get +to to any of players choice and +1 to any of players choice, this tells me nothing about how the average Owlin compares to the average Human. I think Owlins should have gotten a +2 Wisdom and +1 Dexterity, the same abilities that Aarakocra get bonuses in but just reversed showing they aren't as dexterous but are more observant and their other bird counterpart.
There are benefits and downsides to do that. I agree with you and also think those bonuses help to give each ancestry more character, but at the same time I can also sympathize with the people against that philosophy who claim it effectively "locks" certain classes to a specific ancestry which is the most optimal one for that role. What I tried to do with my ancestries was kind of a middle-ground (for example, I said elves can distribute 2 points between dexterity and wisdom, in hope that increased versatility would still give elves some intrinsic character but at the same time open up more possibilities to players who want to pay more optimally). That is still in testing, but I do feel confident about it.
This is why i love playing minotaur. A cursed race, trible, cut off from civilization. My go to is a minotaur looking to bring civilization back to his kin, forge a future for his people outside savage wilderness survival. Its a story i love to see.
I liked the ardling concept. It also was pretty lore heavy when you consider the book of exhausted deeds. But the stat blocks sucked. But they were very redundant....like most things 5e
@@TheFirstArcadianDnD Oops lol looks like auto correct struck again Exulted not exhausted... my bad. but in the case this is still new nonetheless, back in the days of 3rd edition, they came out with two books. The book of vile darkness, and it's counterpart Book of exulted deeds. the book detailed the upper planes and the angels and celestials. right now, 5e only has angels and left out the archons some reason. Archons are celestials with a leaning to the chaotic alignment. A hound archon is one of the most recognizable, being a dog-human. Archons were almost always animistic, if not entirely esoteric (lantern archon for instance) that's why I was disappointed with the ardlings disappearing, but it was very redundant given we have the Aasimar - reskinned can easily be an ardling. But regardless. when you look into the inspiration of the angels and everything having a very strong judeo-christian influence the angels all had animal influence. they were not all fluffy winged androgynous humans. Then looking at other faiths, the gods often had animal characteristics. it was a shame they couldn't get the idea off the ground.
One of my campaigns I had adjusted elves, as well orcs and goblinoids simply to accomodate my players acting like humans wearing another skin. halflings, gnomes and dwarves were still more esoteric though.
WotC's run of D&D is to create content, not worlds. They create mechanics and tool kits, not lore nor stories. They create species, but not cultures. Especially since 5e, the company's output has been allergic towards fleshing out campaign settings beyond a book each, with very little concrete information. They can't risk mechanical conflict-everything needs to be compatible with one another, so they have to wash out all the deeper lore and sand down all the edges, so somebody's homebrew campaign can possibly incorporate every book's player options. It takes active home-brewing and DMs to say "no" to certain options, and it also takes them to make executive decisions about the setting, lore, and importantly in this context… *cultures*. Cultures need lore, lore needs a world. Why does this species exist in the world? How do they interact with others? How do they relate to one another? What is their history, where are they headed? How can a player conform with their culture, how can they go against the grain? What are odd things or quirks that make this culture stand out? *What different cultures exist within the same species?* WotC has been putting the onus on individual DMs and groups. And plenty of their customers push back against such criticism with the adage, "Oh, but I prefer homebrewing myself!" Which is good for them, but it's starting to show the weakness in this decision of creative direction (or rather, a lack of creative direction). Like mentioned in the video, 40 species to pick from is a staggering number. But with no cultures or settings to back them up, they're basically meaningless. They might as well all be humans wearing costumes. The Ardling was a symptom of an underlying issue that has been festering for well over a decade. And as long as WotC shows no bold creative direction in building any worlds, there will be no sense of history nor culture to any new species introduced.
That would make much more sense, and in their defense, they did try to steer towards that direction in their revised version. Still, it was somewhat lacking...
I know this comment is old but one of the problems stems from the fact that animal headed celestials have been around in D&D for a long time. The hound archon and the Guardinals but because 5e refused to do anything with the great wheel cosmology and didn't bother to include them in the Monster manual a huge swathe of people who started with 5e had no reference to pull from and thus the idea seemed to come out of nowhere
I'm gonna be that guy: We can't have diverse species with unique inherent and cultural characteristics because of the modern moral panic over everything called "race". That's also why WoTC is trying to move away from the word, imo. P.s. Race, species, and ancestry are not interchangeable words. Totally different concepts.
And to be extra pedantic, "race" was never correct from the beggining. Those would be species, biologically speaking. But if there are virtually no differences between all the species options, what's the point of having them at all? It would be simpler to write down in the PHB "you can look like whatever you want". That's a legit way to play games too, and there is nothing wrong with games where there really is no difference between all the species (even though I'd argue it's more interesting and realistic when that's not the case). But of course, if that happened, they wouldn't be able to sell as many books of player options...
With the Hadozee they went too far. There were way too many similarities with african slavery, to the point it was simply offensive. I, at least, felt ashamed for that.
@@TheFirstArcadianDnD Eh slavery is basically the same across the western world so I think your seeing the art influence more an anything. Almost every artist in the world has been influenced by Disney which had been influenced by Minstrel shows.
@@TheFirstArcadianDnD Actually race is more accurate than species as the requirement to count as different species is that either they cannot breed or if they can the offspring is either sterile or in some way not viable. Half elves and half orcs both exist and can have children.
I understand why it was scrapped, but I’m still a bit sad about it too. In my head can see an ardling acting very different to a human, in that their divine heritage and bestial nature makes them less emphatetic towards humanoid kind. Common trope, but I could get lots of fun visual design ideas and roleplay ideas out of it!
Have you come up with any home brew fixes? Maybe you can start a common trend where certain races are allowed some new options. Maybe you could come up with said options?
@@LeviAndFriends111 there's a whole video about it in the channel, if you're curious :) ruclips.net/video/tCtCd5fwL18/видео.html I've only published the 4 core ancestries, but I plan to release more in the future
Wait, are you implying then that elves are then also more than just humans with pointy ears? I mean that seriously, since that is how most people play them. And like you mention, WotC never had really ben that creative to create something new, but always borrowed stuff, and a huge part has been just the look of things--which is part of the reason why I decided against having illustration for my system/world I am working on. And talking about design, that is why I also don't do ancestries, but directly the heritage features, so that people can play humans with the weird stuff if that is what they want and do not have to jump through hoops of some lore they do not what to play of specific beings. Thus divorcing the game mechanism there completely from the narrative and let give the players more liberties of the narrative they actually want to create.
Elves have one of the richest and most evocative lore in the Forgotten Realms setting, but most of that information is "hidden" in supplement books, and even if it wasn't, the design doesn't encourage players to incorporate that into their roleplay. The feeling I get from most official ancestries is either super strict and kinda disfunctional ("These guys are always like this because... reasons...") or undistinguishable from humans ("These guys are half-giants but apparently they're exactly like humans psychologically and socially") Not doing ancestries is a valid option. If there is not going to be any difference between them, why have them at all (you hearing WotC?)? It just makes me kinda said because there is the oportunity to do something really cool right there, just lying and waiting. I wish the ancestry you picked could be more that simple aesthetics and truly provide a different game experience.
Even pre-WotC, TSR/Gygax borrowed heavily from Tolkien, who in turn borrowed heavily from Nordic sagas. It's not easy to create something truly original.
I just fundamentally disagree on all fronts. You can hand all the ancestry lore and culture to players, but the only players that are going to utilize that to give their characters that "heart" are the one's who would do it anyway. Trying to add or force rules on "how to play" a character based on their ancestry is just too restrictive to have as a rule of thumb, because at the end of the day any player can and should be able to hand-wave those restrictions via backstory. I like my player options being basic and mechanically based, and I can go do additional research on the culture and lore of said ancestry to inform how my character behaves if I *want* to.
Wizards of the Coast isn't really interested in including race lore, just mechanics. Owlin, looking at you 😂 Good video.
Thank you!
When I'm playing an unfamiliar race in Dungeons and Dragons, I rely on information pulled from various sources in previous editions. The lore of most playable races in 5e is significantly lacking without doing so, and retcons introduced in 5e only seem to make the problem worse. Many of them simply feel generic, shoved in so that players can play "something that looks and acts like this!" rather than something with a pre-existing culture in a setting.
I feel that a lot. They mostly feel built for visual appeal rather than actual meaningful substance
Definitely not letting WotC off the hook, but most Players only ever play themselves (or rather, how they view themselves). Few and far between are the Players that look at race and background as more than an aesthetic.
I feel that too. And while some players don't know any other ray to RP, and we can show them how fun it is to jump out of the comfort zone, some other times it's a conscious decision. When that's the case, to each their own, but I can't help thinking they are missing out on a very unique experience
I mainly just read dnd lore, but maybe Ardlings should have been humans transformed into hybrids due to a cult or mad scientist, or maybe you did it to yourself & you gotta wrestle with this new form. But I agree they should use unique races more, I rather be a strange spider creature with multiple legs or a centaur who has to navigate human cities because it’s different.
I'm a year late to this but I do feel the need to say that this isn't a new 5e and beyond phenomenon.
I've been recreating all of the old races for personal use in my 5e games and what I've found is that once you go deep enough into the rabbit hole you start uncovering things from way back like the Voadkyn, who, in 2e, only existed to be friends with wood elves and shoot arrows good. In 3.5e there's a lot of really interesting concepts like the Slyth, Xeph, and Neraphim but they all just kind of sit in their own corner of the world with no reason to interact with the other races than chance meetings.
Then in 4e you have weird things like the Dragonborn having their Mewtwo Strikes Back story beats stripped from them to just have them be generic dragon people. Also the inclusion of the Mul who, despite having amazing potential for worldbuilding and character hooks, were given the personality of a sand bags and when they were freed form their bad situation they all basically just collectively decided to stand around and kick dirt.
It's kind of sad and makes me think that the "you all meet in a tavern" trope might be a symptom of something much bigger because the playables aren't even given a reason to go outside most of the time.
One thing I didn't like that Wizards did is removing specific racial ability bonuses, now they're like "just put the +2 and +1 anywhere you want". Having specific ability bonuses shows you a good idea of the average member of that races abilities.
Half-orcs have a +2 Strength and +1 Constitution showing that the average member of that race is physically stronger and hardier than the average Human, which they are.
Meanwhile
Owlins get +to to any of players choice and +1 to any of players choice, this tells me nothing about how the average Owlin compares to the average Human.
I think Owlins should have gotten a +2 Wisdom and +1 Dexterity, the same abilities that Aarakocra get bonuses in but just reversed showing they aren't as dexterous but are more observant and their other bird counterpart.
There are benefits and downsides to do that. I agree with you and also think those bonuses help to give each ancestry more character, but at the same time I can also sympathize with the people against that philosophy who claim it effectively "locks" certain classes to a specific ancestry which is the most optimal one for that role.
What I tried to do with my ancestries was kind of a middle-ground (for example, I said elves can distribute 2 points between dexterity and wisdom, in hope that increased versatility would still give elves some intrinsic character but at the same time open up more possibilities to players who want to pay more optimally). That is still in testing, but I do feel confident about it.
@@TheFirstArcadianDnD well Tasha's gave players the ability to move the bonuses around so they didn't have to do away with set racial bonuses
This is why i love playing minotaur. A cursed race, trible, cut off from civilization. My go to is a minotaur looking to bring civilization back to his kin, forge a future for his people outside savage wilderness survival. Its a story i love to see.
That kind of storytelling, heavily inspired but not necessarily dominated by the ancestry's lore, is what exactly I'd like to see more
I liked the ardling concept. It also was pretty lore heavy when you consider the book of exhausted deeds. But the stat blocks sucked.
But they were very redundant....like most things 5e
Book of exhausted deeds? I don't think I never heard of it, what is it?
@@TheFirstArcadianDnD Oops lol looks like auto correct struck again Exulted not exhausted... my bad.
but in the case this is still new nonetheless, back in the days of 3rd edition, they came out with two books. The book of vile darkness, and it's counterpart Book of exulted deeds.
the book detailed the upper planes and the angels and celestials. right now, 5e only has angels and left out the archons some reason. Archons are celestials with a leaning to the chaotic alignment. A hound archon is one of the most recognizable, being a dog-human. Archons were almost always animistic, if not entirely esoteric (lantern archon for instance)
that's why I was disappointed with the ardlings disappearing, but it was very redundant given we have the Aasimar - reskinned can easily be an ardling.
But regardless. when you look into the inspiration of the angels and everything having a very strong judeo-christian influence the angels all had animal influence. they were not all fluffy winged androgynous humans.
Then looking at other faiths, the gods often had animal characteristics.
it was a shame they couldn't get the idea off the ground.
One of my campaigns I had adjusted elves, as well orcs and goblinoids simply to accomodate my players acting like humans wearing another skin.
halflings, gnomes and dwarves were still more esoteric though.
Into the trash it goes. And nothing of value was lost.
WotC's run of D&D is to create content, not worlds. They create mechanics and tool kits, not lore nor stories. They create species, but not cultures. Especially since 5e, the company's output has been allergic towards fleshing out campaign settings beyond a book each, with very little concrete information. They can't risk mechanical conflict-everything needs to be compatible with one another, so they have to wash out all the deeper lore and sand down all the edges, so somebody's homebrew campaign can possibly incorporate every book's player options. It takes active home-brewing and DMs to say "no" to certain options, and it also takes them to make executive decisions about the setting, lore, and importantly in this context… *cultures*.
Cultures need lore, lore needs a world. Why does this species exist in the world? How do they interact with others? How do they relate to one another? What is their history, where are they headed? How can a player conform with their culture, how can they go against the grain? What are odd things or quirks that make this culture stand out? *What different cultures exist within the same species?*
WotC has been putting the onus on individual DMs and groups. And plenty of their customers push back against such criticism with the adage, "Oh, but I prefer homebrewing myself!" Which is good for them, but it's starting to show the weakness in this decision of creative direction (or rather, a lack of creative direction). Like mentioned in the video, 40 species to pick from is a staggering number. But with no cultures or settings to back them up, they're basically meaningless. They might as well all be humans wearing costumes.
The Ardling was a symptom of an underlying issue that has been festering for well over a decade. And as long as WotC shows no bold creative direction in building any worlds, there will be no sense of history nor culture to any new species introduced.
"They might as well all be humans wearing costumes" - this is the best description of the current ancestry landscape in D&D I have ever heard
I'm okay with species/races being purely aesthetic
The Ardlings should have been from the Beastlands!
That would make much more sense, and in their defense, they did try to steer towards that direction in their revised version. Still, it was somewhat lacking...
I know this comment is old but one of the problems stems from the fact that animal headed celestials have been around in D&D for a long time. The hound archon and the Guardinals but because 5e refused to do anything with the great wheel cosmology and didn't bother to include them in the Monster manual a huge swathe of people who started with 5e had no reference to pull from and thus the idea seemed to come out of nowhere
I'm gonna be that guy: We can't have diverse species with unique inherent and cultural characteristics because of the modern moral panic over everything called "race". That's also why WoTC is trying to move away from the word, imo. P.s. Race, species, and ancestry are not interchangeable words. Totally different concepts.
And to be extra pedantic, "race" was never correct from the beggining. Those would be species, biologically speaking. But if there are virtually no differences between all the species options, what's the point of having them at all? It would be simpler to write down in the PHB "you can look like whatever you want". That's a legit way to play games too, and there is nothing wrong with games where there really is no difference between all the species (even though I'd argue it's more interesting and realistic when that's not the case). But of course, if that happened, they wouldn't be able to sell as many books of player options...
With the Hadozee they went too far. There were way too many similarities with african slavery, to the point it was simply offensive. I, at least, felt ashamed for that.
@@TheFirstArcadianDnD Apparently, many people felt the way you do. /shrugs
@@TheFirstArcadianDnD Eh slavery is basically the same across the western world so I think your seeing the art influence more an anything. Almost every artist in the world has been influenced by Disney which had been influenced by Minstrel shows.
@@TheFirstArcadianDnD Actually race is more accurate than species as the requirement to count as different species is that either they cannot breed or if they can the offspring is either sterile or in some way not viable. Half elves and half orcs both exist and can have children.
I understand why it was scrapped, but I’m still a bit sad about it too.
In my head can see an ardling acting very different to a human, in that their divine heritage and bestial nature makes them less emphatetic towards humanoid kind. Common trope, but I could get lots of fun visual design ideas and roleplay ideas out of it!
I didn't really got that vibe from them. If they developed that trend of thought, maybe I would have liked them a bit more :/
Have you come up with any home brew fixes? Maybe you can start a common trend where certain races are allowed some new options. Maybe you could come up with said options?
I listened to the whole video and answered my question! Great job!
@@LeviAndFriends111 there's a whole video about it in the channel, if you're curious :) ruclips.net/video/tCtCd5fwL18/видео.html
I've only published the 4 core ancestries, but I plan to release more in the future
Wait, are you implying then that elves are then also more than just humans with pointy ears? I mean that seriously, since that is how most people play them. And like you mention, WotC never had really ben that creative to create something new, but always borrowed stuff, and a huge part has been just the look of things--which is part of the reason why I decided against having illustration for my system/world I am working on. And talking about design, that is why I also don't do ancestries, but directly the heritage features, so that people can play humans with the weird stuff if that is what they want and do not have to jump through hoops of some lore they do not what to play of specific beings. Thus divorcing the game mechanism there completely from the narrative and let give the players more liberties of the narrative they actually want to create.
Elves have one of the richest and most evocative lore in the Forgotten Realms setting, but most of that information is "hidden" in supplement books, and even if it wasn't, the design doesn't encourage players to incorporate that into their roleplay. The feeling I get from most official ancestries is either super strict and kinda disfunctional ("These guys are always like this because... reasons...") or undistinguishable from humans ("These guys are half-giants but apparently they're exactly like humans psychologically and socially")
Not doing ancestries is a valid option. If there is not going to be any difference between them, why have them at all (you hearing WotC?)? It just makes me kinda said because there is the oportunity to do something really cool right there, just lying and waiting. I wish the ancestry you picked could be more that simple aesthetics and truly provide a different game experience.
Even pre-WotC, TSR/Gygax borrowed heavily from Tolkien, who in turn borrowed heavily from Nordic sagas. It's not easy to create something truly original.
I just fundamentally disagree on all fronts. You can hand all the ancestry lore and culture to players, but the only players that are going to utilize that to give their characters that "heart" are the one's who would do it anyway. Trying to add or force rules on "how to play" a character based on their ancestry is just too restrictive to have as a rule of thumb, because at the end of the day any player can and should be able to hand-wave those restrictions via backstory. I like my player options being basic and mechanically based, and I can go do additional research on the culture and lore of said ancestry to inform how my character behaves if I *want* to.
*Heard the word ancestry instead of race, leaves video*
Race doesn't make any sense from a biological standpoint and makes my scientist side writhe in pain 🤷