So with the introduction of Ardlings in DND one, will Tieflings still be big with players?

So with the introduction of Ardlings in DND one, will Tieflings still be big with players?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    HP bloat was a mistake

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OK I have officially seen too many fucking ardling threads to ignore any longer

    what the fuck is an ardling

    dnd.wizards.com is no help, are there rules for them anywhere?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      tiefling but good (descendant of celestial bloodline instead of fiendish bloodline), they are effectively replacing aasimar

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        But we already had aasimar (and deva)

        what the fuck is the point? why is the entire fucking board so obsessed with them?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It seems that aasimar are not very popular, both on this board (you see them mentioned less frequently than tieflings or elves or even dwarves and goblins) and in WotC's market research. When something doesn't sell you either scrap it or re-desing in attempt to make it more appealing and than that's what happened.
          Why /tg/ cares? Partially because /tg/ deperately latches onto any D&D news the more ridiculous the better (remember endless combat wheelchairs threads?). Partially because the way ardlings are proposed would allow to play them as monstergirls and fursonas (anywhere between 10% and 80% furry) and this place happens to be a lair of degenerates.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ok furry.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >It seems that aasimar are not very popular,
          >When something doesn't sell you either scrap it or re-desing in attempt to make it more appealing and than that's what happened.
          According to your claim they should have different priorities as to what to remove then.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            what does Variant human mean?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It means a human who gets a +1 to two attributes, a free skill proficiency, and a free feat.

              As opposed to 'normal' human, which just gets +1 to all six attributes.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not really, they are more like furry aasimar rather than just replacements.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Sounds like fun in an Egyptian setting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I said something along those lines to my friends when discussing this, but we both know that that isn't what Ardlings will be used for.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >but we both know that that isn't what Ardlings will be used for
              Gee, kind of like how Pathfinder Kistune are supposed to be anthropomorphic foxes who can change into humans (and a feral fox sometimes) but most of the weebs on /tg/ think that means “Oh, like the fox-eared humans in my favorite FotM anime trash?”

              This will be hilarious. I’m excited to see d20 weebs are going to be losing their minds because of tHoSe EvIl FuRrIeS from now on.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This is what always gets me about this dumb shit. Why do spergs pretend they’re not coomers just to get mad at other coomers?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >This is what always gets me about this dumb shit. Why do spergs pretend they’re not coomers just to get mad at other coomers?

                And here we have a beautiful example of confession through projection.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That wasn’t aimed at the anon being replied to but instead what was being described in the post.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          which retard put those in alphabetical order instead of L/N/C

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            When WotC sends their developers, they're not sending their best.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Where is this text from. I am looking for the whole thing, in context. (And not finding it on dnd.wizards.com)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's unearthed arcana for D&D 6e
            https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/one-dnd/character-origins/CSWCVV0M4B6vX6E1/UA2022-CharacterOrigins.pdf

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/one-dnd/character-origins/CSWCVV0M4B6vX6E1/UA2022-CharacterOrigins.pdf

              Fuck yes, finally.

              Thank you.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Oh this is garbage, i hate this shit. Fly as a bonus action but only X times pr. long rest? Commit to your design you gays.

                >Angels should fly but giving it to player characters is OP so we'll put an artificial limit on it that makes no sense in character

                please have a nice day, this kind of garbage design is far worse than any amount of monstergirl furgayry.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Determining your origin, you need:
              >A race
              Makes sense
              >A background
              Yeah
              >A language
              What?
              Also got to love that common sign language is a standard language. In a pseudo-medieval world where restoration spells exists, there are more deaf people than people who speak the language of their gods, apparently.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >In a pseudo-medieval world where restoration spells exists
                DnD settings almost universally ignore the effect of magic on the society. Mostly because if you go that route you won't be having a pseudo-medieval world for long. If you have enough magic-users around to heal every crippled, blind, and deaf person, you should also have enough magic users to go full Tippyverse and create a magitech-based society.
                The general assumption why this isn't the case is that magic is rare enough that the average person has no access to it (a lord or king would be able to get a healer to restore a broken leg, but a random peasant will just have to live with it), but that's also inconsistent with how many PCs and NPCs are spellcasters.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'd imagine the vast majority of spellcasters in society are only 4th - 6th level spellcasters and NPCs of note, by virtue skew more towards extraordinary powerful spellcasters.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Also got to love that common sign language is a standard language. In a pseudo-medieval world where restoration spells exists, there are more deaf people than people who speak the language of their gods, apparently.

                Therr's other uses for sign language besides just deaf people. Also regenerate is a 7th level spell, common folk wouldn't have access to it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Exalted
          I hope WotC gets sued.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Even then, there's no restrictions on being a good tiefling or an evil aasimar. Where's the formian or slaad descendants?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          yeah, alignment inclinations don't really apply to PCs anyway, so on practical terms tieflings end up (Chaotic) Neutral more often than any sort of Evil

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >they are effectively replacing aasimar
        Where are people getting this from

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Aasimar are not listed among the core races, but the Ardlings are.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Aasimar were never core in the first place

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Weren't they core in 4th? (but called Deva)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No, they were not in the first PHB

                https://i.imgur.com/Kl1EQFE.jpg

                So with the introduction of Ardlings in DND one, will Tieflings still be big with players?

                Mmmmm, makes me hope we get random appearance tables back for Tieflings. More than a few fiends based on the sin of gluttony or other debaucheries or grotesqueries so a tiefling like this may be a canon possibility.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >not in the first PHB
                mea culpa, it has been a while

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Mmmmm, makes me hope we get random appearance tables back for Tieflings. More than a few fiends based on the sin of gluttony or other debaucheries or grotesqueries so a tiefling like this may be a canon possibility.

                Well I doubt we will, but it's an interesting idea.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They are furry pleasers because at least one designer is into it. Aasimar and devas aren't in 6.0 and and if Aardlings become core then they will likely not be added to the third or fourth set of player options.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A furry race which is spammed by furries here.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it has the furry potential but it's not inherently furry, you can play them as Disney characters

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Disney characters
          Those are furry

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >furry race spammed by furries.
        This is incorrect. These threads are spammed by one especially autistic anon, trying to validate his rage against DND6e by spammings the parts of it he doesnt like in true Ganker-fashion.
        Proof? If it was a furry, they would be bumping the OP posts with questionable furry images. But now the autist has read this post and will update his posting modus operandi.
        >Disclaimer: dnd6e looks like shit, and I will avoid it as I did 4e

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Got to love how much arguing this is going to cause.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sometimes you just need to try no matter the odds.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >'ight, which one you started this camp fire in the hotel lobby?
        >You think it's easy to get burn marks off the tiles?
        >C'mon, fess up! I think I wouldn't notice that big bag of marshmallows you brought in?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          that's not quite what's going on in that picture, but close enough

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Is there a limitation for most nearly-impossible tasks other than an insane DC, I wonder. Can I jump to the moon with this? I mean there shouldn't be a hard cap on such a task, just that the range of the jump would make the DC impossibly high to clear. It should just be an acrobatics roll or something, right?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Can I jump to the moon with this?
        I'm pretty sure you can't have line of sight to the moon (by 5e RAW).

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Did they implement a max range to "anything you can see"? For what purpose?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The distance you can jump should still be limited by your movement rate (otherwise you could just bypass your normal movement rate by jumping everywhere), which would obviously place the moon way out of your jump distance.
        Also, since the text states you only bypass penalties to the roll, it should be something that could be done, even if the odds are very low (and thus have a large negative modifier). If your GM says "sure, you can roll to jump to the moon but there's a huge penalty to the roll" instead of "no, you can't roll to jump to the moon because it's impossible" he's an idiot, because the former implies that he thinks there is a possibility it could be done.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You are not supposed to ask for checks that are impossible, they want rolls to be called only for tasks for which the outcome is uncertain. Going to be fun to adjudicate when you let one player roll for a skill and not another like a dm fiat trained only.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >You are not supposed to ask for checks that are impossible

          That just makes the rule redundant faffing about though - if you're only calling for checks that can succeed, they already succeed on a 20, so why have a rule that 20 always succeeds?

          The only purpose of such a rule is to give impossible checks a chance to succeed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There's a difference between something that's theoretically possible but extremely unlikely (i.e. has a large negative modifier to the roll), and something impossible (no roll can be made). For example it's possible but very difficult to hit a moving target near the maximum range of your bow in bad weather, but it's not possible to hit the moon. Natural 20 represents the "one in a million" chance of succeeding in a task that's theoretically possible but so difficult that the modifier would otherwise make it impossible in a d20-based system. The issue with a d20-based system as opposed to a percentile-based one is that the range of possible dice rolls isn't good for representing theoretically possible but very unlikely results. In a percentile system you can give a roll as low as 1 % chance of success, but when rolling a d20 your options are the roll never being able to succeed even if the outcome should be possible or it succeeding 1/20th of a time.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Nat 20 doesn't naturally represent "any theoretriclaly possible result", it's literally just DM flavor if it means anything more than general success or a little bonus damage. So yeah one in a million, if it seems thematically appropriate, a DM might consider that. Or he might just consider a result that is as likely as 1 in 20 because that's literally what it is.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Nat 20 doesn't naturally represent "any theoretriclaly possible result",
                it literally does under

                Got to love how much arguing this is going to cause.

                though not in "vanilla" 5e (or earlier editions)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it literally doesn't because people don't go "I'm going to catch a bullet in my teeth" and then roll hoping for a nat 20. They rolls to do something plausible, and if the DM thinks they're being unrealistic he can just say they fail without telling them to roll.

                You're reading between the lines to come up with the most extreme scenario in order to say the whole thing is flawed. Which is kinda dumb.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          First half is redundant if you don't ask to roll on impossible checks then. The wording implies that you are able to roll on things that you couldn't succeed on.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I've lost count how many new, trendy races have been added and then forgotten in past 20 years, while tieflings still reign supreme.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You've posted this thread before, the last thread had more fat tiefling art though

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >tieflings still big with players
    they've never actually been "big" people here just get upset when they see one they imagine them being overdone. Seriously you still get more humans and elfs and dwarves than anything else, but one tiefling every other game is "big" apparently.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Elves and dwarves
      Think again

      >It seems that aasimar are not very popular,
      >When something doesn't sell you either scrap it or re-desing in attempt to make it more appealing and than that's what happened.
      According to your claim they should have different priorities as to what to remove then.

      Half-elves are arguable, but you don't really see them played near to elves, they are just humans with a different stat-block in my experience

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It lists elven and dwarven subraces separately, though. Altogether, dwarves constitute 6.6% of D&D Beyond characters, and elves constitute 13.7%.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Ok, that's just me being blind. Still, 7.5% is quite a large part of players, considering that the largest groups are 22.8% and 13.7%.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why would it break them into subclasses? Add them up and look again.

        Also you need to put elves and half elves in the same box because depending on edition they can be different or one might not even exist. But to the players it's still the "point eared elf race" no matter what the game thinks the lore should be.

        The argument is that they're hardly "big" and that most people on this board who complain about them act like they're filling up every party.

        But according to that list when you combine all the variants together then it's over 50% human, elf, or human/elf hybrids. And after that nearly every other race ranges from 6-7% on average, with enough room for error and bias in this source that you can consider them all just as popular.

        That's not big, that's just one of a number of options that isn't super rare. You're just as likely to get a gnome or a halfling.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly, Tieflings have become such a huge part of the game's outward look (even if it's mostly negative) I'm pretty damn sure they'll still be around. Just remember that at the end of the day, the community is in control, not Wotc.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Just remember that at the end of the day, the community is in control, not Wotc.
      The shitposters who get triggered by tieflings don't think like that. They act like Wotc are video game devs and any changes will immediately affect every game and not that DMs will take new things under advisement but still continue to run their own games how they want.

Your email address will not be published.