Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea Races (PFRPG)

But all the art I have seen for changelings make them look short. Besides having them short makes them look less threatening.

What I want to know is, why do Changelings have cleric stats when they're supposed to be witches?

What I want to know is, why do Changelings have cleric stats when they're supposed to be witches?

Probably because they don't want every witch to be a changeling or every changeling to be a witch.

I'm partial to changling rangers with the natural weapon combat style myself.

I also found it strange they don't get a bonus to Int but I find it even stranger they get a Con penalty.

Changelings have one of the most extreme "Before" and "After" changes in the system.

I could changelings being redone as having different stat sets for different heritages. But that's beyond the scope of this book, I'm sure.

(It's also worth noting that a changeling's class levels don't normally survive the transition.)

Perhaps in a Blood of the Coven somewhere down the line...

I have a "hulking" changeling/Bloodrager that turns into an Anis hag when raging...it's working fine for me ;)

I have a "hulking" changeling/Bloodrager that turns into an Anis hag when raging...it's working fine for me ;)

Nice.

Kalindlara wrote:

Ruby Rose Royce wrote:

Hey, the description of changelings say they are "tall and slender" yet they are by their height/weight chart about a foot shorter than a human female... Sooo seems to me there is a mistake either in the description or in the chart...

Thoughts from anyone (staff or players welcome :P )

As Mr. Jacobs said, probably an error. It's always aggravated me as a huge changeling fan (obsessed is probably a better description).

I just use the elf table. Still hoping for errata though. ^_^

Alas... was brought to my attention a few weeks too late to be errataed anytime soon.

That makes me sad.

James Jacobs wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

Ruby Rose Royce wrote:

Hey, the description of changelings say they are "tall and slender" yet they are by their height/weight chart about a foot shorter than a human female... Sooo seems to me there is a mistake either in the description or in the chart...

Thoughts from anyone (staff or players welcome :P )

As Mr. Jacobs said, probably an error. It's always aggravated me as a huge changeling fan (obsessed is probably a better description).

I just use the elf table. Still hoping for errata though. ^_^

Alas... was brought to my attention a few weeks too late to be errataed anytime soon.

That makes me sad.

Welcome to my world! The Isle of Ennui in the Sea of Tears!

Welcome to my world! The Isle of Ennui in the Sea of Tears!

I wonder who Nocticula snuffed to make that isle...

The first Groetus.

Welcome to my world! The Isle of Ennui in the Sea of Tears!

Sounds like a challenge for designing a gameworld-neutral module to me!

I really hope there is some art for aquatic elves, I don't even remember seeing any for them in Pathfinder.

Here's hoping for Ekujae and Mordant Spire Elves.

I really hope there is some art for aquatic elves, I don't even remember seeing any for them in Pathfinder.

There's a headshot in Elves of Golarion. But that's about it.

I really hope that the skinwalkers make it into this book and get their ability scores fixed. Between witchwolves having an int penalty and many skinwalkers gaining mental bonuses instad of physical bonuses which they shapechange they had a serious case of flavor not matching the mechanics.

Heck, if they fixed skinwalkers in this book that would make it a must buy for me.

Elves of Golarion is 3.5, so we still don't have one.... yet.

They had the same problem with the Dhampir heritages.

They had the same problem with the Dhampir heritages.

Yea, I think those got a semi-official errata. Hopefully that will make it into the book.

I hope they will be in the book as well.

I really hope that the skinwalkers make it into this book and get their ability scores fixed. Between witchwolves having an int penalty and many skinwalkers gaining mental bonuses instad of physical bonuses which they shapechange they had a serious case of flavor not matching the mechanics.

Heck, if they fixed skinwalkers in this book that would make it a must buy for me.

There'll be a little bit of finessing for some of the skinwalker stat mods, but we're trying hard NOT to go crazy with unnecessary errata.

In the case of the witchwolf, their intelligence penalties are likely to remain. Note that while they have the word "witch" in their name, this isn't meant to imply that lots of them take levels as witches. And they need ONE penalty at least, and frankly... as far as wolves are concerned... Intelligence is the stat that seems to me to be the most logical choice to penalize.

We're very close to pencils down on this, so if someone wants to make an impassioned plea or argument... now is the time!!!

EDIT: At this point, we ARE shifting the werecrocodile-kin mods from +2 Int/–2 Wis to +2 Con/–2 Wis AND the wereboar-kin from +2 Wis/–2 Cha to +2 Str/–2 Cha... but the other ones seem to be pretty spot on as far as we can tell...

Dragon78 wrote:

They had the same problem with the Dhampir heritages.

Yea, I think those got a semi-official errata. Hopefully that will make it into the book.

These changes are indeed incorporated in.

I really hope there is some art for aquatic elves, I don't even remember seeing any for them in Pathfinder.

While there's no new art of aquatic elves (we do re-use Eva WIdermann's cool headshot from Elves of Golarion), there will be some aquatic elf art coming soon in another product...

Matrix Dragon wrote:

I really hope that the skinwalkers make it into this book and get their ability scores fixed. Between witchwolves having an int penalty and many skinwalkers gaining mental bonuses instad of physical bonuses which they shapechange they had a serious case of flavor not matching the mechanics.

Heck, if they fixed skinwalkers in this book that would make it a must buy for me.

There'll be a little bit of finessing for some of the skinwalker stat mods, but we're trying hard NOT to go crazy with unnecessary errata.

In the case of the witchwolf, their intelligence penalties are likely to remain. Note that while they have the word "witch" in their name, this isn't meant to imply that lots of them take levels as witches. And they need ONE penalty at least, and frankly... as far as wolves are concerned... Intelligence is the stat that seems to me to be the most logical choice to penalize.

We're very close to pencils down on this, so if someone wants to make an impassioned plea or argument... now is the time!!!

EDIT: At this point, we ARE shifting the werecrocodile-kin mods from +2 Int/–2 Wis to +2 Con/–2 Wis AND the wereboar-kin from +2 Wis/–2 Cha to +2 Str/–2 Cha... but the other ones seem to be pretty spot on as far as we can tell...

Wolves are actually pretty intelligent...but I am guessing that this is really just a pointless argument. Though considering their werewolf heritage and the lost of 'control' I would give them a wis penalty.

The problem with mental stat increase when they shift is that it is useless for the most part. For non-spellcasters it is pointless...for spellcasters you get a slight increase to your spells save DC and that is all.

But than again my biggest disappointment about Pazio is their handling of lycanthropes in general.

It's not "a pointless argument," but it's not as simple a matter to assign their penalty score as you might think. Wolves are actually one of the tougher animals to assign a "dump stat" to. They're certainly strong, fast, healthy, perceptive, and social, so those all argue against penalties to anything OTHER than Intelligence (which is why we arrived at Int in the first place).

It's not "a pointless argument," but it's not as simple a matter to assign their penalty score as you might think. Wolves are actually one of the tougher animals to assign a "dump stat" to. They're certainly strong, fast, healthy, perceptive, and social, so those all argue against penalties to anything OTHER than Intelligence (which is why we arrived at Int in the first place).

That is why I said pointless...as I agree it is not that simple. It is probably the stat that makes the most sense for it.

Though if I was designing the skinwalkers I would probably had given them same stat increase humans get (+2 to any stat) as they are mostly human...and when they shifted they would get a stat increase to a physical stat and put as time limit on the shift.

Also I get that because something is called a witchwolf does not mean that they are well suited for the class witch...but I can understand why people would think that way.

Cool, nice to know that aquatic elves will get some art finally, even if it isn't in this book.

It's not "a pointless argument," but it's not as simple a matter to assign their penalty score as you might think. Wolves are actually one of the tougher animals to assign a "dump stat" to. They're certainly strong, fast, healthy, perceptive, and social, so those all argue against penalties to anything OTHER than Intelligence (which is why we arrived at Int in the first place).

Well, why should they have penalties at all? Asimar don't have -2 penalty after all, and wolves are in some ways way cooler than Asimar :)

Axial wrote:

What I want to know is, why do Changelings have cleric stats when they're supposed to be witches?

Probably because they don't want every witch to be a changeling or every changeling to be a witch.

Changelings get bonuses to two dump stats for witches (WIS, CHA) and a penalty to the second most important stat witches have (CON) - if you change the WIS bonus to an INT bonus they'll be a decent option but nowhere near the top option for witch races.

We're very close to pencils down on this, so if someone wants to make an impassioned plea or argument... now is the time!!!

Another call for mechanical changes, but is there any chance you could consider making the gillman's Water Dependency a little less harsh? The flavor of the race is very cool, but having to carry sufficient water to submerge a medium-size humanoid whereever you go is problematic for anyone without access to Create Water, especially at low levels. Making yourself combustible with the Riverfolk alternate racial trait is less than ideal for obvious reasons. Maybe gillmen have developed an alchemical item or a minor magical item that allows their ambassadors and merchants to cross ground without bringing a watering tank?

They could always make a racial feat for Gillmen that takes it away or at least lessens the effects.

The idea with this book isn't to redo all the mechanics for every race -- we're printing the updated versions for things for which we've done errata, but we're not going back and retweaking everything.

Why do Hobgoblins get +2 dex instead of +2 str?

EDIT: I propose a trait which allows you to exchange the +2 dex for +2 str. It's a soldier race; it's only natural.

As I said above...

*sigh*

So, what makes this book different from the advanced race guide?

It's campaign specific and it has more fluff, less crunch.

As I said above...

*sigh*

LOL

So, what makes this book different from the advanced race guide?

We talk about that above. Please read the thread for details. Short answer: the RPG line is setting-independent, while this is a campaign setting book, so it's setting-focused.

You could revisit the surprising combatant feat.
As originaly written i think it was a really good feat, at least the intention.

In my view, instead of having improved initative as a prereq, this could be tied to having evasion or something like that.

So, now I'm pretty sure you guys are just trolling. <wry>

We're fixing the Blood of... heritages that got errated. That's pretty much the extent of what's changing, as far as old rules elements.

So, now I'm pretty sure you guys are just trolling. <wry>

We're fixing the Blood of... heritages that got errated. That's pretty much the extent of what's changing, as far as old rules elements.

Maybe? It seems like that a little bit.

That said, Hayato is referencing a skinwalker feat (tiger heritage, specifically) from Blood of the Moon that was informally errata'd by Patrick Renie a few months after Blood of the Moon's release, so I don't think that's a trolling attempt.

Will there be more info on this book during Gen Con?

Not trolling, was just asking a legit question from work, where I can't really read 8 pages of stuff.

I'll keep my questions to myself next time.

Not trolling, was just asking a legit question from work, where I can't really read 8 pages of stuff.

I'll keep my questions to myself next time.

Nope don´t do that. I think Jessica is just a bit overworked or something.

Odraude wrote:

Not trolling, was just asking a legit question from work, where I can't really read 8 pages of stuff.

I'll keep my questions to myself next time.

Nope don´t do that. I think Jessica is just a bit overworked or something.

Please keep your armchair psychoanalysis to yourself. It's neither useful nor appropriate. How tired I am is irrelevant to whether I find people asking for things I said aren't going to be in this book in a post right below the one where I said it frustrating.

These Races should be playable and for 45 bucks we have every right to ask for changes that make them so.

Sure, if this book were a redo of the ARG, that'd be totally legit. But this book isn't a redo of the ARG. It's in a different line, and has a completely different focus.

If you think something is so broken it's not playable, flag it for the design FAQ, so it gets considered if/when we errata that book.

On top of Miss Price's excellent points, changelings have been printed three times already (AP #43, ARG, B4). I find it to be all kinds of unlikely that they'll suddenly get new ability modifiers now.

Here's what I'd really like to see - a low-impact* archetype (or even a feat/trait/alternate racial trait**) for changeling witches that allows them to use their Charisma for all acts of witchcraft. That has the advantage of not obsoleting any books, and lets us have that sweet changeling flavor.

It's unofficial, but after running them through the race-point calculator in the ARG, I just gave them a +2 racial bonus to Intelligence without taking anything away. You'd be surprised at how not-gamebreaking it was. ^_^

*"Low-impact" means that it changes as little as possible, so that the archetype stacks with as many other options as possible. The unlettered arcanist and fiend flayer archetypes are good examples of "low-impact".

**A feat or trait, while possibly being a tax, has the advantage of working for the hexcrafter magus as well.

EDIT: Started discussion here, to avoid derailing this thread.

I happy to just find out how all the different races fit into golarion. One of my players seems to always pick a weird race and it gets hard for the flavouring sometimes.

I am also really interested in the Golarion specific information about most of the races.

Actually I'm a bit curious. If skin walkers are in here, will we get to see some inkling of Arcadia? :D

Sure, if this book were a redo of the ARG, that'd be totally legit. But this book isn't a redo of the ARG. It's in a different line, and has a completely different focus.

If you think something is so broken it's not playable, flag it for the design FAQ, so it gets considered if/when we errata that book.

I think it's a bit unfortunate to first encourage people to 'make an impassioned plea or argument' and posting some (very welcome changes) to skinchangers, then immediately follow up with 'we're not considering these arguments and we don't want to include errata'. At the very real risk of pointing out the obvious, it's still worthwhile to consider suggestions even if the focus of the book isn't directly related to what the suggestion entails.

For example I mentioned that the Gillman water dependency trait can makes the race problematic. I'm speaking from experience here in that I played a Gillman in a skull & shackles campaign (finally, a campaign where being water-dependent isn't a crippling character flaw - or so I thought) and then realized my Gillman died from organ failure quite literally before the adventure path started - he was drugged in the afternoon, and by the time he woke up on the Wormwood the next day it had been more than 30 hours since his last bath. The GM laughed and we retconed it, but still... No one at that table were keen to play a gillman again.

While I absolutely understand your stance that rewriting Water Dependency isn't an option for this book, you could still consider the reason why the suggestion was made and maybe provide some options to make Water Dependency less problematic. Adding in a feat (thanks Dragon87!), an alchemical oil, a low-level spell or a (relatively) cheap magical item that lets gillmen operate outside of water for longer periods of time doesn't seem entirely off-topic for a book that's meant to provide realistic cultural details about races exactly like the gillmen - based on my personal experience, it's a problem I'd expect the gillman culture to recognize and try to solve as well.

Similarly while I understand that altering changelings is problematic, you can still get some use out of my suggestions on Changelings - namely that it'd be nice if Changelings worked better with the witch class. Assuming you agree with that premise and want to make changeling witches a more dynamic option, how you'd go about doing that is entirely up to the designer. Creating alternate race variants akin to angelkin for the different hags or expanding on the Hag racial trait has already been mentioned. I also think Kalindlara has a great idea in using changeling-specific archetypes to make their attribute spread more compatible with the witch class.

The Inner Sea Races is not primarily meant to be a rules mechanics book, but it was also compared to Inner Sea Gods. About 30% of the page total in ISG was dedicated to providing mechanics that helped flesh out the flavor material the book explored. While I understand the Inner Sea Races might have a smaller rules section, based on the ISG I'd expect it to have somewhere between 70-100 pages of mechanics. Most of the suggestions I've seen here (especially the mechanical ones) can help you consider what races the community thinks could do with some more mechanical support to become more widely used, or help live up to the flavor in which they've been described.

I realize it might be frustrating that I'm predominantly focusing on the mechanical aspects in a book that's not really meant to be a rules-book. Thing is, the Paizo writer teams writes an amazing campaign setting. I have zero concerns that the flavor text in this book will be interesting, on point, and relevant to my interests. As such, the thing that I'm left to make suggestions on is to make sure that the rules mechanics support that flavor as much as possible.

Finally, please don't be upset with posters or (even accidentally) snark at them for making suggestions. Everyone here are taking time out of their day to post because they want this book to be the best book it can be! :)

Jessica Price wrote:

So, now I'm pretty sure you guys are just trolling. <wry>

We're fixing the Blood of... heritages that got errated. That's pretty much the extent of what's changing, as far as old rules elements.

Maybe? It seems like that a little bit.

That said, Hayato is referencing a skinwalker feat (tiger heritage, specifically) from Blood of the Moon that was informally errata'd by Patrick Renie a few months after Blood of the Moon's release, so I don't think that's a trolling attempt.

The bulk of the rules in this book are going to be new; this book isn't really the place for us to be reprinting lots of already-in-print feats. We're trying to keep new content in here for folks, in other words. And again... remember that even then, the majority of the book focuses on the flavor and world content as to how these races exist in the Inner Sea region.