This Was OneD&D's Biggest Mistake 

Thanks everyone for watching! This video was at least 5 minutes longer at one point, but it was sitting on my to-do list for months and I *really* wanted to be finish it. A couple points of clarification on things I left out: - The guardinals (and the hound archon, I suppose) are such a perfect base for the ardling, but they're too specific for the PHB. Also, they're not even from the Beastlands! Guardinals are from Elysium and Hound Archons are from Celestia. In an ideal world, the WotC team revisits the Upper Planes in a supplement book and brings back the Ardling there, with a less catch-all design. - The tieflings, as many have stated, pre-5e used to just stand for a 'plane-touched person', and only in recent history were tied specifically to the Nine Hells. I'm actually quite happy with the middle ground of tiefling = evil plane-touched, and would've been fine with a simple holy counterpoint ala first design. But the beast head stuff was a bit too ambitious to tack onto what should be something very simple and approachable for new players. - Beastfolk are such a wild concept (heh) to push into a single species. There's just way too much variation and too many "essential" things to satisfy. Surely it *can* be done, but it would betray the brevity that most other species try to stick to. A full page would be needed spelling out all the variants to give it any justice (but then, trunks? Poison? Wall-climbing? Way too many things that *must* be included*). - I celebrate OneD&D as an opportunity to workshop all of these concepts, and I don't condemn the team for trying something that didn't work. A successful game has dozens of terrible designs left on the cutting room floor, it's a testament to the hard work of iteration. While the whole Ardling run is seen in poor light in retrospect, I made this video to celebrate the process. Kill your darlings, and all that. - The Beastlands is actually so cool of a concept and it's criminal it's been so ignored. I make stuff up about the Beastlands in like every campaign I run. Untapped potential! That's all! See look, all this above text would've added a month to my editing cycle ^-^;; Thanks again!

Interesting tidbit: tieflings were introduced in the 2nd edition planescape campaign setting guide, and are not associated with a particular plane. Not even a group of evil planes, tieflings were just "plane-touched" or came from "something else". It was not specified until later editions that this meant a fiend of the lower planes. So a 2e character with angelic ancestry from the beast lands would also be a tiefling.

My problem with the ardling was that they didn't try and give it any unique features, they mostly took a bunch of traits we'd seen before and pallet swapped them. The beast features were kind of new, but not that interesting either. I really wanted to see some sort of holy beast archetype emerge from the playtest but they gave up really quickly.

I do see what they were going for, a counterpart to tieflings based on Egyptian style divine beings. Problem was we already had the Aasimar which were children of upper plane beings.

A starting race that let you dabble in a Wild Shape Light without playing a Druid would be really nice, actually. Presumably via an inherited version of that curse. Like you need to pick a head shape on character creation, and can take that animal form as an Action or something, but ONLY that animal. Gaining stuff like the movement speeds & senses as you level up.

They were basically Guardinals from planescape in concept. So maybe we have to wait for the Planescape box to come out

Imo Aasimar should have just been changed to be the mirror for Tiefling.

I think “Marketing” wasn’t the main reason behind the animal aspect of Ardlings. A lot of players want to play animal people, especially new players, and WoTC wanted to add that option in their new Player’s Handbook so that every player will have that available to them. I see Ardling as kinda an animal focused “Custom Lineage” race where you can play as any animals you want and you get a few animal related features. Of course a Tabaxi is going to be a better “cat human” race than Ardling, but that’s the price you pay for a “One size fits all” type of race. Not every animal is going to get a race, so I’m glad we have (or were going to have) this option. Also, I think it’s very important to remember the context of the Ardling’s death. The first draft was not very popular, but the second draft got some positive feedback. Then the entire OGL controversy happened and because of some rumors (both true and false) people started to believe that WoTC didn’t care about their feedback for playtest content. Even though the reviews were getting better and the next iteration of the race was probably going to be really good, WoTC sacrificed the Ardling in an attempt to show the player base, “Hey, we do listen. Ardling wasn’t that popular so we completely cut it!”

Honestly I think the Ardlings could had worked well enough if they just had mixed the two drafts (IE having Celestial Legacy, Animal Ancestry, and radiant resistance as their features).

I really liked the Ardling as presented in the first playtest, and was super excited to see how the community embraced them going forward. But I think because they WEREN'T real beastkin, we lost out on a cool and flavorful NEW thematic race. Rip in peace, we barely new thee.

I know RAW, Aasimars aren't technically the counter to Tieflings, but I always just homebrewed them to be anyway. It just makes more sense to me.

I feel like focusing on a tiefling counterpart and maybe having a separate holy beast race would have been better

I think Aardlings just overlap too much with other species, and its hard to fit them in when almost every plane has a species associated with it. We already have Tieflings for the Lower Planes, Aasimars for the Upper Planes, multiple Fey species for the Feywilds and the Shadar-Kai for the Shadowfell. Genasi have the Elemental Planes covered (though I'd love to see hybrid Genasi for elemental fusions), Astral Elves for the Astral Plane and the Giths for Limbo. Maybe we could get a mech species (or revised lore for the Warforged that fits into the Forgotten Realms) to represent Mechanus, but pretty much every plane is already covered. What if Aardlings were like diet Totem Warriors: not literal animal people but people who've been enhanced with the power of a totem animal. That way they could have animal, nature and spiritual themes without also being ANOTHER Fey species.

This is my take, even though I agree on your take on aasimar in regards to how it scale alignment vertically, I still see it as the antithesis of tiefling because of the angel/demon bloodline trope. With that said I would still like to see the ardling return at some point because like you said it would bring in a non-biblical representation of celestial beings. Athough before that happens, we would likely need to get a "general beastfolk" race similar to the one in the Ultimate Adventurer's Handbook just so that the ardling can stand on its own without having try to be THE flexible beastfolk while also being another celestial race.

The issue as I saw it was lack of identity. Ardlings in each iteration were just a shallow 'be anything but also everything' option that if players wanted a specific identity they would be better served through the other racial options. Player wants to be an angelic/celestial themed character = Aasimar Cat folks = Tabaxi / Leonin Elephant = Loxidon Bird = Aarakocra / Owlin Hippo = Giff Monkey = Hadozee Reptile - Lizardfolks / kobold / dragonborn Rabbit = Harengon Frog = Grung Turtle = Tortle etc etc etc And with flavour being free, players could easily refluff the story elements of any existing option to suit their desired character while still having a strong imprint to others at the table of what they were playing. Say I wanted to play a rhino themed character? Refluffing a minotaur gives me the features I'd be looking for (horn ram attack, big, strong, intimidating) without needing to homebrew any mechanics. Even saying "Shifters don't count" in your video isn't entirely true. A player that wants a humanoid beastfolk is stiill able to translate that concept to the table and be conceptually recognized by their fellow players through that concept.

the aasimar don't have subraces anymore, you can use any of the 3 old subrace abilities

i didn't even know they cut the Ardling, i thought it would be cool to make anthropomorphic animal people, although making them divine entities was kinda weird...

The Ardling was such a confusing species. The beast aesthetic felt like an excuse to add furry art to the 5.5 PHB. I don’t mind the aesthetic, I just find it weird they’d try to make a catch-all furry species and tie most of it’s features to being angelic. It just felt random, like a homebrew that “totally makes sense in this specific world.”

The actual biggest mistake was the very structure of the "playtest", which is so siloed in its approach as to make useful feedback all but impossible (ie it's impossible to properly consider new features in-context, with actual understanding of how they might interact), to the point that calling it a "playtest" does disservice to the word.

I really have been liking your 99 more series, but man I love and was missing your scripted videos! Thanks for this one it is a great overview and it gives me some great ideas for my own game.

In my homebrew I kept the Ardling, representing Neutral Good planes of existence, with the Aasimar representing Lawful Good planes. To accommodate I homebrewed my own race for the Chaotic Good planes, the Aesir that take inspiration from Greek and Norse mythology making them into mostly larger than life hero characters with massive personalities and flaws that come with that

Ardlings bombed because the team tried to rewrite Aasimars without their narrative tension and (understandably, imo) not enough people gave enough of a care for them to make the cut

Honestly the issue is with Race / Species itself; WotC would *like* the idea to be primarily aesthetic, it's just part of the character's appearance. But they also realize that a three-foot-two raven dude is just going to be different from a seven-foot-five mountain guy in abilities. So you end up with some really shallow design like say, "Hey here's an angel guy with a goose head, I guess." It's absolutely minimal and will never actually be that appealing.

You said it best: instead of making 14 different animal based classes that would make all new players and players seeking to play anthropomorphic beast types swoon, they instead made something that nobody wanted and mechanically wasn't very strong. When they tried to make it more about the animal . . . it was even weaker and also . . . like why is their a species of snake heads/dogheads/eagleheads . . . like do they all lay eggs or is it like mammals? How does this species function as a species - oh it doesn't it's just "oooh pretty animals, you players like that right?" and no additional lore to speak of their kingdoms or hiearchy or anything like that.

They should have used the Deva as the mirror to the tiefling. It doesn't have too much history in 5e for players, and they can even take inspiration from the 4e version to get it kickstarted. Not sure there is any kind of spot for animal forms in the PHB. They were too focused on the animal aspect, having a mirror to the Tiefling would be a good thing though.

I think, for most, the Aasimar has always filled the role counter to the Tiefling, conceptually, despite the options presented. ANY RACE/SPECIES can be portrayed in whatever way a player likes, but the core concepts of the Aasimar and Tiefling have always come across as celestial or infernal heritages, respectively. Ardling felt weird, all around. It didn't fit well in any but the most specific of niches as an extra-planar blooded race, and you mentioned those niches in your video. They would work well only in settings that prominently feature animal-headed entities, and that is definitely not generic enough for a PHB species. Beast species ARE popular, but they need more love than the second version of the Ardling was given. All of the beast races we've seen thus far have been given a lot of attention to make each feel unique. Ardling v2 was too generic and meh. This is not to say that the Ardling was dead out of the gate, but as a species with subspecies options, it was going to need a lot of work to sell it. The base Ardling needed to be just the right amount of "generic anthropomorphic species" while leaving a LOT of room for extensive subspecies variation. The biggest problem was that this was never what the Ardling was intended to be, so I'm sure the folks behind the concept were bristling against the idea of a modular beast-person species.

It seems cool but if anything id rather have a rework of the Aasimar and have them be the true counterpart to tieflings. No hate against Ardlings though.

One thing I like to point out, is that ardling was intentionally vague enough that you didn't necessarily have to have the entire head of the animal, only features that resembled it. Noticably, this would make anime cat girls an official race in the phb. The amount of unfiltered cringe in that design decision is probably why the race got the axe.

In the later days of of 3.5 WotC put out a book called Savage Species. In the very back was a few paragraphs about a low ECL player race called Anthromorphs or Anthropomorphs or something. Basically the human body animal head race. The short few paragraphs of description were followed by 6 or 7 pages of spreadsheets listing off all the different animal heads/subspecies you could choose from in a single line. Each line contained the racial ability score bonuses and penalties for each animal type, whether they had claws, wings, swim speeds, or any other senses. Not surprised a halfbaked after thought from the tail end of 3.5 didn't work as a flagship pillar of 5.5/6e part 2 the reckoning.

I feel like aasimar could have been revised to allow for them to fit with the tiefling. If their subrace branches the vertical alignment, couldn't you water it down a little and add a second lost of options to branch the horizontal? Then aasimar can traverse the full alignment grid. It'd at least be better fitting than what it is now

They're Aasimar just make the Ardling as an alternative Aasimar and dump the animal headed part!

I am ancient and wicked and remember people losing their mind when 4th made Tieflings and Dragonborn core in the PHB. It's so weird to me that people got in a snit over Ardling while defending Tiefling like it was a DnD Tradition. (I love Tieflings, don't get me wrong - but they're kind of new!)

I think they probably should have stuck to one specific celestial group for the Ardling like the Egyptian or Hindu gods. That way you don't have to worry about every kind of animal and you can properly fit that kind of half animal esthetic with the celestial origin.

Personally if they ever try to publish another version of the Ardling I would personally like for them to drop the animal theme, experimenting with the weird forms Angels and other celestial brings can take instead. A simple, direct counterpart of the Tiefling already worked perfectly for me, a race which came with simple features tied to divine spells while the Tiefling was the same with arcane spells.

I'm not even sure that a "top row" race makes sense. One of the defining traits of angels is that they can fall.

There goes my favorite race. A sad day indeed. Will still play in homebrew cuz I loved it so so much. My sweet angelic wolf

I completely agree nobody wants to play a watered down beast race. Ardling just needs to drop the animal part if they want to be released.

I think they’re trying to simulate the ‘Archon’ celestials which I encountered in 3.5

Definitely a missed opportunity for players, getting a suitable counterpart to Tiefling would be a fun addition with nice lore potential, though of course Wizards does what gives them the most amount of money now. At least homebrewers have more tools and ideas to bounce and use from this, I personally like the idea of the animal heads being a call back to biblically accurate angles, and think if they went down that route we would have had a much more interesting and much more rememberable race.

There is one mild misconception about the ardling's animal head being entirely a marketing decision, granted it was indeed a factor. The ardling was partially influenced by a celestial from 2nd and 3rd Edition the Guardinal, neutral good humanoids with animalistic traits native to Elysium. At the same time this was a bad idea to use them to make a catch-all beastlike race, as creating such an option that makes for fewer options is far from what players would desire. As for a canine race WotC missed the boat in "Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft" a lesser known race from their Mystara Setting- the Lupin a race of humanoid canines with a traditional occupation as lycantrope hunters would have been perfect to add alongside the Dark Lineages listed in the book.

The Ardling should have been based on the Beastlands!

To me the Lore of the setting must be adhered to. If you wish to intrduce a new race / species it should be an evolution and/or adaptation of a pre-existing element. This only limits the scope if they keep making spells and races for the Forgotten Realms specifically yet trying to cater to non-forgotten realms ideas. If WOTC came up with a new setting they could introduce new races suitable for the setting that intrinsicly tie onto the lore of that setting. I'm not alone in being a stickler for the lore many GMs despised what they did in 4e to the extent that WOTC had to press the AO button to undo the largets offences. With that said there are still plenty of pre-existing races and species that are unexplored in the Forgotten Realms that could make interesting playable choice, just adapt their current abilities to a balanced format. I also disagree with the design principle of simplifying everything... dumming things down is only useful for new or casual players. I'm sure that rich flavourful mechanics will always be the cornerstone between RPers and Optimisers - the predominate branches of D&D players. Thus to comprimise on flavourful mechanics for the sake of simplicty is to reduce it's apeal to a large portion of the player base. I would like to see a new setting that is suitable for the Ardlings in whatever form that should be, redesign the cosmology for the alternate setting - heck this is WOTC they have access to all their Magic the Gathering lore, they should be spewing out settings and deities. (yes I'm aware of Ravnica and Theros - but imagine Amonkhet pre-Bolas or Zendikar pre-Eldrazi)

I get the sense that WOTC tried to deliver a theiromorphic playable race without a clear conception of what that means in a modern western cultural context. There are some historical theiromorphic depictions in western culture, but for the most part, nature/divine have been irrevocably closed from one another. Part of player expectations is a distinction between what is primal and what is divine. To your great point, most of D&D canon poorly reflects the cultural diversity of our world's religions and so every conceptions of the celestial realms are primarily judeo-christian. Why havn't any celestials bene theiromorphic before? Why is there no celestial cow (like Mehet-Weret)? I don't think wotc has a global cultural understand to implement the great diversity of cosmological inspiration. Perhaps one day.

I really liked the ardlings, but yeah combining animal and angel into was was not a good idea.

The problem is that WotC dropped the guardinals and hound archon. I think the ardlings should have embraced them once more and have the ardlings be half-race versions of them or blessed in some way so that you can become them. Maybe they're a new lineage. "Guardinals: animalistic celestials native to Elysium and the House of Nature." They're in AD&D and 3rd Edition. I fully expect ardlings to make a return. Crawford said as much. They just need to pad out the books and give them a proper introduction with expanded Campaign Setting information. I too want a dog race. We got a tease in 3rd where we technically had two. One was the lupin from Dragon Magazine and Dragon Compendium Vol 1., and the other was the laika in the 3.0 Savage Species web enhancement showing DMs how they could make new races.

I think the Ardling was a great opportunity to have a build-your-own-beast type character. Dnd has a lot of beast-like races, but if someone wants to play a dog person they culd make an Ardling and pick the racial options that best fit their imagining of a dog. Personally I think they should skip the swimming and other related features, and make mammal centric design in order to not be too broad again.

I really enjoyed the Ardling. It is super disappointing that they didn't move it forward. There was so much potential.

Can't understand why ppl are still complacent on being corporate shills and still looking up to a dogshit company like WotC for dnd content. There's so many indie creators that make way better stuff

The versions kinda leaned onto selestial, and kinda leaned onto furry bait, not really playing into either, and ended up dissatisfying everyone.

I think they be perfect if they did an Egyptian setting

I never had an opinion about the Ardling. I would rather have natural born lycanthropy and/or player control lycanthropy.

I didnt want another beast race. I was fine with. The ardling as something recalling things like hoind archons and whatnot but they could have shown different parts of a celestial nature to make them unique rather than "its like the aasimar" They could have loghtning resistance and a be able to add intelligence or wisdom to a persuasion check a couple of times. If you want to lean in to the beasty stuff they might turn into a small animal once per day and have a druid cantrip. If you want a movement option you could have them cast expeditious retreat or simply be able to "phase" 5 feet. Its possible to pull from the same well and come up with something different.

I actually learned more from this than I thought I would based of just the title. Great video!

I think one issue is that the upper planes and celestials can be easily retconned to make Aardlings more fitting. They've literally reconned major pieces of worldbuilding with every single edition, so it's not like there's no precedent for it. Like, the egyptian gods canonically exist in D&D, so you don't even need to retcon much. I think that by cutting out one of the most interesting parts of the playtest, I feel like WOTC signaled to me personally that "No, this edition will be seasoned with flour, and you will like it, buy our overpriced books, corpo slave". I'm not sure I'll be playing 6th Edition. 5th has been fun, but as it's getting increasingly obvious that WOTC has hit that critical mass where the finance department essentially rules the company, customer be damned. I've quit MTG, and I'm moving away from D&D to other games.

I actually liked the early version, basically spirit animals as angels. Of course the bestial aspect was not too much focused, since it was more of a Platonic ideal -- an essence, like people use symbolism in religious context quite often. But I guess D&D players are not ready for that... which is why I every time I want something deeper, more meaningful than just a glorified skirmish game, I have to go to other games.

I want a chaos touched race. I love the Ganzi from pathfinder, but found it as my playgroup was moving to 5e.

Glad to see edited videos again! :D

I liked second draft of the Ardling a lot, although it's mostly because of one specific mechanic, the Climber Ardling could add it's proficiency bonus to the damage of an Unarmed Strike. I'm a massive proponent of Unarmed Getting big buffs, and the Climber Ardling's effect was completely unique.

They were not only themed bad, both the original and the revised versions were mechanically awful. If they were released in either version it would be the least useful race, making the original Dragonborn(they were bad) look great in comparison.

damn I'm so mad, I actually liked the Ardling

*Facepalms* Isn't WotC trying to move away from "All members of [Ancestry] are [this alignment with rare exceptions]"? Are they not removing alignment mechanics _from_ the [Ancestries] and making them based on the society the PC is from? Keeping the aasimar in their current form will be an exception to their deign goal. This means that the aasimars _need_ to be changed! The simple fix is to go back to the older versions of the Aasimar. From Races of Destiny page 93. Alignment: Blood infused with the power of celestial realms virtually guarantees that assimar are good in alignment, although individuals vary wildly in their interpretation and may favour lawful or chaotic behaviour. In extremely rare instances, an aasimar turns from good, becoming neutral or evil. Fallen assimars live as hunted beings, reviled by their own kind for betraying the blood [that] flows in their veins. Here is the entry for the Teifling (page 107). Alignment: Due to their infernal blood, almost all tieflings are evil. Whether rapacious and chaotic, self-serving and subtle, or adhering to a twisted and rigid sense of honour and lawfulness, few tieflings escape the taint in their blood that bids them towards evil. Yes. WotC should allow the aasimars and tieflings to be of any alignment while giving them mechanics based on who their ancestor(s) are... not what alignment/motivations they have. :/ If they really wanted a beastial [ancestry]... they could just allow the PCs roleplay as ... descendants of the various types of weres (without the moon curse, the damage resistance, and vulnerability to silver)... that might make them a bit happier. Except... there isn't a [Sub-ancestry] for anyone to pick... they select their [ancestry] gain their ancestry features... and then select the location they are from, right? So... why _aren't_ the aasimar already the opposite of the tieflings?

Scourge asimar are definitvily not neutral lol

This is what mixed messaging in feedback results in. Concepts being dropped. Because all the "ew, furry" spam won out in the end.

Honestly I'm annoyed with Wizards for the whole thing about the dog race they are perfect opportunity to give us one we got the of the Guilds of Ravnica book we have the Theros book they could easily win the new kamigawa set released release the book for that as well which would have given Venus Kitsune and rat-folk and whatever other races are on that plane I can't remember them all off the top of my head I think there's snake people in there as well which are different from the yuan-ti and that would have been cool and we could have gotten like goblins from that realm as well but they chose not to which I think is a really missed opportunity because it could have allowed us to do more with like Asiatic mythology and stuff much like the old oriental Adventure book from 3.5 which was very good but apparently now is considered Politically Incorrect

It's pretty easy tbh, WotC is too scared to make fun and interesting races. Yes, the evil word race. It's so sad to see them getting haggled up in dumb stuff like this. The same with the "new" lineage system for half races, which is an okay step but just plain boring. I sat down one evening and had a system that was similar but way more flexible and open for new ones. And to my knowledge there were already celestial animal people before the Ardling. Just put them in. It's the same with Triton and Sea Elf. Or the other 3.000 elf kinds. They have to be braver to grant races and classes bigger boons that make them believable and unique. Like the Giff got their flat out adv. on Strength checks + powerful build inclusive.

for me this is example what is wrong with whole playtest and how dndone is designed if you listen to people form wotc talking about playtest they are never talking about design and what is good for game they are talking about what is appealing wotc don't necessarily want to make good game they want to make the most appealing game that the most people would buy at the release nearly every thing that players said they didn't liked is removed or reversed but not fixed or changed

Here's my two ideas for Ardling, please read! ❤ 1) What if Ardlings were simply just Awakened Animals (with a slight twist)? :D Perhaps Awakened Animals that, upon leaving the Beastlands, can transform to have a distinctly humanoid, bipedal body type. Still with the animal head, fur/scales/feathers, tail, etc - just now they'd have arms, hands, legs and feet. This means they'd have some flexibility between their original animal form and an adapted humanoid form. It'd make sense for their connection with the Beastlands (relative with the optional curse of that realm) though perhaps not necessarily all the other celestial planar alignments - which could be offered to another new/original species!). Beings in connection with the Beastlands, they could still benefit from a resistance to Radiant Damage. (Also could just be "sentient" instead of "awakened", depending on whether or not a connection with magic is necessary for the beyond-beast levels of consciousness and intellect.) 2) The system they were trying to introduce for Ardlings in the second round is nice, but insufficient. Distinguishing them into those four Animal Ancestry talents is too simple! It doesn't give us the flexibility to truly grasp the many varieties of animal species that are out there. Some animals attack with claws and teeth, some animals can climb and swim and/or fly. I think Ardlings as a species need to be given the freedom to select their traits freely, so that they can be customised relative to their animal species. They'd have to limit our choices somehow measure, but I wouldn't constrain those choices to "if you have claws, choose this", "if you can fly, pick this". Rather, allow players to allocate points to determine their movement speeds (walk, climb, swim, fly) and their unarmed/natural weapon damage die (4, 6, 8, etc.). Keen Senses and Divine Magic are both great, so keep those!

Thought it was just me who thought the ardling was a disappointing and wierd race

The counterpart to tifflings who are half demons should be the Nefilims form the jewish bible they arr whst really you get when angle doing it with a human.

That's so lame. We could just take the original concept and homebrew our own abilities for the different animal options.

Gary Gygax is rolling in his grave... just sayin'... That aside, I'm glad I found your channel; I do enjoy your videos. 🙂

The music is too loud

I for one glad the furry bait is no going be in main hand book.

Cool vid keep it up

Unfortunately wotc is keeping ze bloodlines pure.

Man good video but you need to start googling dnd lore before doing this kind of videos..lol I have no idea where did ou get scourge are neutral Aasimar. Aasimar adn tieflign were are a par of plane touched lineages since 2e, but Aasimar has the problem of not being popular or unique enough, thats why they are traded to Deva in 4e and probably why they tried to impleemnt Ardlings in 5.5 Ardling are clearly based in the Guardinals of 2e and 3e

We wanted animal races not an animal race look at tabaxi and leonin both cats but play different not hard to see why we don't like it also gives an excuse not to make animal races with their own unique traits

Sorry, this was difficult to listen to, with the really loud music and sound effects.

Boycott WotC.

cool ardling info but the title is a bit too click baity for my taste. ideas for better titles: onednd's ardling problem This was CUT from onednd why ardlings suck!

Ardling was horrible I hope it stays dead, no Resurrection for it ever

worc sucks

DnD races have become stupid and goofy at this point. Like a 1980s Chuck-E-Cheese band. It's like Disney runs WOTC now.