Big Beards and Pointy Ears

Very nice preview. I love the possibility to choose a tertiary stat to boost, so as to allow more freedom in combining the different heritages with the classes. And I also like the separation between innate heritage feat and "acquired" feats: the latter seems basically like alternate racial traits you can select as you character progresses, suggesting that he or she does not only develop his class-related abilites, but also somehow make his heritage and natural gifts stronger. I like the roleplaying potential of it.

And I don't know if I am wrong, but it seems to me like we have a picture for each ancestry as fighters (the goblin was a fighter, judging from his equipment, and both the dwarf and the elf here seem fighters as well to me, their gear is very Valeros-y). Does that mean that we will get a picture of each core class-race combination? That would be incredibly awesome, let me say it...

I do like the idea that not all dwarves are proficient with dwarven weapons, and other "racist" stereotypes that get heaped onto your characters. Now, we get to pick them.

I also think that we should get a few ancestry feats at level 1 to help customize our characters better, but I also think that ALL of our ancestry feats should be acquired at level 1.

Ancestry is part of your character's background. It makes no sense to just randomly become proficient with racial weapons because you gain experience, especially if others aren't allowed to do the same.

Same time, I'm going to miss those default weapons you can always fall back on if your class doesn't have the Proficiency. But they are doing something different with weapon Proficiency so dunno.

So are negative modifiers a thing of the past? I mean, I guess you could intentionally gimp yourself but seems like it will be a very rare occurrence.

Not really there are many builds that wold rather take the +2 into something that is more useful. Ex: +2 str in a Dwarf fighter is more useful than getting rid of the -2 cha. I don't know how the ability generation will work but I think many people will stay with their negative scores.

I'm super excited to P2, is Wayne Reynolds going to do all the work for the books or will they be mixing and matching the artwork of several artists?

The current plan is for Wayne to do all of the illustrations in the Playtest Rulebook. We'll see if that translates to the Core Rulebook in 2019, but it's certainly possible that it's a one-artist book, too.

Is there anyone else who's not a fan of "only at first level" feats? There are times when I want to incorporate a background feat or heritage feat into my character, but don't have enough feats to accomplish what I want.

I also like the idea of discovering yourself in such a manner that an ancestry feat only reveals itself at a later time.

I mean, I understand the rationale behind 1st-level-only, I just don't always like it. Perhaps it's my experiences with PF1, where taking a background feat that looked really cool just didn't help out much when I needed that other feat to be competent in combat.

And perhaps my issue could even be alleviated if we started the game with two (or more) ancestry feats right at the beginning.

I'm okay with level 1 only feats IF they don't conflict with other feats.

In other words, there is just a list of feat that can only be taken at level 1 and you are given a feat (or feats) that can only be spent on those feats.

bookrat wrote:

Is there anyone else who's not a fan of "only at first level" feats? There are times when I want to incorporate a background feat or heritage feat into my character, but don't have enough feats to accomplish what I want.

I also like the idea of discovering yourself in such a manner that an ancestry feat only reveals itself at a later time.

I mean, I understand the rationale behind 1st-level-only, I just don't always like it. Perhaps it's my experiences with PF1, where taking a background feat that looked really cool just didn't help out much when I needed that other feat to be competent in combat.

And perhaps my issue could even be alleviated if we started the game with two (or more) ancestry feats right at the beginning.

I'm okay with level 1 only feats IF they don't conflict with other feats.

In other words, there is just a list of feat that can only be taken at level 1 and you are given a feat (or feats) that can only be spent on those feats.

I'd be down for that. And then it could be cross chapter, so it could be spent on an ancestry feat or a background feat or whatever, so long as the feat has a Level 1 limitation.

It does feel like a single ancestry feat (especially when you factor in level 1-only heritage feats) is a little too restrictive. I was pre-visualizing them as the racial traits/alternate racial traits which meant I would expect ~3 or so at level 1 -- in which case I don't think the heritage restrictions would be a burden.

I was envisioning the higher level ancestry feats being closer to feat chains that embrace a particular aspect of your ancestry rather than simple spreading out to grab more of the non-level 1 restricted options.

Something like the dwarven weapon prof (heritage, level 1 only), dwarven weapon focus (requires prof in at least one dwarven weapon, from any source, level 3 or higher ancestry feat)

Or the ancestry based grudges following a "animosity -> feud -> hatred" style progression of escalting bonuses that someone would take over the course of their career as they get madder and madder at their historic enemmies because of current events, etc.

Is there anyone else who's not a fan of "only at first level" feats?

I mean, I understand the rationale behind 1st-level-only, I just don't always like it.

So, if you understand the rationale why don't you enunciate it, and then examine how the same rationale can be implemented in other ways. Seems way more productive from system-design perspective than "I don't like it" "I can imagine it being inconvenient to arbitrary combinations of mechanics" etc.

How's this: 1st level choices (Race itself and Ancestry Feat empasizing aspect of that) are meaningful choice with impact. That said, non-1st-level-limited Feats could also play with same thematic territory, perhaps just not having exact same rules benefit or extensibility. I.e. any Dwarf can Feat-enable some Poison resistance, but picking the 1st-level-only version will be stronger on it's own / uniquely eligible for stronger expansion Feats. I'm not really convinced there is any problem that needs such a "solution", but I'm willing to humor you for benefit of more productive discussion.

I see people complain they can't pull off all the same race features as in P1E/3.x, but Dwarf race features were incontrovertibly overpowered, even by Paizo's Race Designe formula, so I feel like these people are playing dumb. As to complaints "OMG it's so CRAZY a Dwarf can later pick Dwarf specific race feat where did that even come from?", please step 5' back from the mechanics. The world is not mechanics. Some proficiency with certain weapons translates to better statistical results in encounters using those weapons, but without that mechanic we are not barred from envisioning a character whose proficiency is higher than another's. If one likes, it's reasonable to interpret all Dwarves as having strong qualities in all these areas they quialify for special racial feats, regardles only the ones with feat being ones who statitically benefit in encounters, mechanically. Applying simulationaist perpective, expecting direct mutual correltion between world and rules will run into a 1000 different issues with this game besides this, so feigning outrage the same perspective also doesn't work here is an absurdity.

This looks great. I like how ancestries are shaping up. My one concern is that if you only get one ancestry feat at level 1, your dwarf (or elf, or gnome, etc.) might not feel dwarf-y enough from the get go. Has it been confirmed how many ancestry feats you get at 1st level? Is it 1, or more than 1?

Is there anyone else who's not a fan of "only at first level" feats? There are times when I want to incorporate a background feat or heritage feat into my character, but don't have enough feats to accomplish what I want.

These are not what you would call feats in Pathfinder First Edition. They would be alternative racial traits. In Second Edition the term feat is much more widely used to encompass every kind of ability you get to choose. heritage feats are not going to take up slots your regular feat allotment.

Is anyone else now hoping for a dwarf ancestry feat that just gives you an incredible beard?

Whiskered Majesty (Dwarf)

Prerequisites: A really nice beard.

Benefit: You have a remarkably impressive beard. All successes on Charisma-based checks are considered critical successes.

Normal: Your facial hair does not grant you any special abilities.

Is anyone else now hoping for a dwarf ancestry feat that just gives you an incredible beard?

Quote:

Whiskered Majesty (Dwarf)

Prerequisites: A really nice beard.

Benefit: You have a remarkably impressive beard. All successes on Charisma-based checks are considered critical successes.

Normal: Your facial hair does not grant you any special abilities.

Now I want to play Archie Bradley or Charlie Blackmon as Dwarves :P

TheFinish wrote:

So...at the risk of being "that guy"...

This is just PF1 Races. You've added Hit Points, and then turned most of the other Racial Traits into either Heritage Feats or Ancestry Feats.

Big difference from where I see it is now your Race/Ancestry doesn't give you anything except size, base movement, hit points, attribute adjustments, special vision, and access to Ancestry/Heritage feats.

As opposed to in PF1 where Race gave size, base movement, attribute adjustments, special vision, and a whole bunch of assorted bonuses that you could eventually trade away for alternative racial traits once those were printed. But it still gave the impression "all elves can use a rapier", "all Dwarves hate orcs", etc. because you had to actively trade away the thing you didn't want rather than simply selecting the thing you did want.

Instead, now, to print options for "some elves are like this" instead of "alternative racial traits" we can just print new ancestry feats.

It's actually sort of worse, IMO. Previously, sure, you had the fact that Race was more like Physical Makeup+Culture.

But now....it's like all Elves have the potential to use a rapier. All elves have the potential to have their memory thing. All dwarves have the potential to know how to fight derro.

Inside of them. Because they're Elves. Or Dwarves. And it just magically manifests after X ammount of adventuring.

Like, it's now been completely decoupled from upbringing and just slapped into your physical makeup.

Now it's not "Oh, my Dwarf didn't grow up hating Orcs, so I trade that away at CC, and I can never get it back." Now it's "Oh, I've sure been fighting a lot of Orcs, better activate my Dwarfiness on next level up."

"feat" seems to be shorthand for "feature" in the new parlance. ;)

I do agree that getting a second Ancestry Feat at 1st level would enable a lot of concepts that might otherwise be mechanically penalized.

bookrat wrote:

Is there anyone else who's not a fan of "only at first level" feats? There are times when I want to incorporate a background feat or heritage feat into my character, but don't have enough feats to accomplish what I want.

These are not what you would call feats in Pathfinder First Edition. They would be alternative racial traits. In Second Edition the term feat is much more widely used to encompass every kind of ability you get to choose. heritage feats are not going to take up slots your regular feat allotment.

While true, I am slightly worried that I can't both have trained in a dwarven weapon and have been born with my father's genetics at the same time at first level, despite one being something I could have actively engaged in during my youth and the other being something I can't control as a character (but can as a Player). It's like saying, "Did you choose to attend martial arts as a kid granting proficiency with [these] weapons, or did you choose to be born with tolerance to poison oak and poison ivy allowing you to move freely through forests without getting a rash? Pick one of these as a feat. The tolerance feat can only be chosen at first level."

And then, to top it off, what if there's more than one of these first level feats for the same ancestry? Can I pick tolerance to poison oak and also pick tolerance to milk? Or can I only have the proper ancestry and genetics for one of them? How many first level Ancestry feats will we get?

I mean, this isn't really that big of an issue to argue over. If nothing happens to alleviate my worries, I'll just shrug it off and move on. But it is food for thought, at least for me.

Has it been confirmed how many ancestry feats you get at 1st level? Is it 1, or more than 1?

I figure this will be a good thing to test in the playtest.

I'm hoping Half Elves gain their elven-side's Speed of 30.

Ought to be pretty easy to agree in a campaign to house-rule an appropriate number of bonus starting ancestry feats.

Hm... and then suddenly my mind's eye sees people that want to do a one-level dip into another ancestry... :)

PossibleCabbage wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

So...at the risk of being "that guy"...

This is just PF1 Races. You've added Hit Points, and then turned most of the other Racial Traits into either Heritage Feats or Ancestry Feats.

Big difference from where I see it is now your Race/Ancestry doesn't give you anything except size, base movement, hit points, attribute adjustments, special vision, and access to Ancestry/Heritage feats.

As opposed to in PF1 where Race gave size, base movement, attribute adjustments, special vision, and a whole bunch of assorted bonuses that you could eventually trade away for alternative racial traits once those were printed. But it still gave the impression "all elves can use a rapier", "all Dwarves hate orcs", etc. because you had to actively trade away the thing you didn't want rather than simply selecting the thing you did want.

Instead, now, to print options for "some elves are like this" instead of "alternative racial traits" we can just print new ancestry feats.

It's actually sort of worse, IMO. Previously, sure, you had the fact that Race was more like Physical Makeup+Culture.

But now....it's like all Elves have the potential to use a rapier. All elves have the potential to have their memory thing. All dwarves have the potential to know how to fight derro.

Inside of them. Because they're Elves. Or Dwarves. And it just magically manifests after X ammount of adventuring.

Like, it's now been completely decoupled from upbringing and just slapped into your physical makeup.

Now it's not "Oh, my Dwarf didn't grow up hating Orcs, so I trade that away at CC, and I can never get it back." Now it's "Oh, I've sure been fighting a lot of Orcs, better activate my Dwarfiness on next level up."

I can see this going both ways, and its going to come down to the players and the GMS. On the positive side you have "my dwarf has always heard stories about the evils of orcs, but thought they were just exaggerated folk tales. Now I see how evil and depraved they are, its my mission in life to hunt them down" Its an ancestry feat that feels like its narratively easy to justify picking it up any almost any point (pre-campaign, or post major orc event at least).

Even things like "better resistance to poison" -- yes that could be genetic (level 1), or it could be because your character drinks the worse alcohol/grog/slop they can find and over time its built her up ability to deal with it (any time that it makes sense).

Something like switching form low-light vision to darkvision like some of the alternate racial traits did, is much harder to explain away. Since that's not something that (to me) feels like "training" or "experience", and I'd prefer to see locked at character creation time.

It feels fairly reasonable to me in RP-motivated groups. It feels susceptible to immersion breaking min-maxing in non-RP motivated group. However the non-RP motivated groups I've played with haven't cared overly much about immersion, so.... I've had fun in both styles of games, so I think this has promise for both.

But now....it's like all Elves have the potential to use a rapier. All elves have the potential to have their memory thing. All dwarves have the potential to know how to fight derro.

I just disagree that "feats you could take but did not" are "potential you have inside of you" rather than just "stuff you did not focus on or pick up." Like does my 19th level Dwarven Cleric have the potential to be a Wizard since I could still take one level in Wizard? Does my Paladin who never lies no matter what have the potential to be a "Deceitful" because I could take that feat? If there's a derro-fighter lurking inside of every Dwarf and a Rapier duelist lurking inside of every elf, then why isn't there a Wizard lurking inside of every 19th level Cleric or a talented liar lurking inside of every Paladin?

A lot of Dwarves learn a lot about stonework, because that's an important part of Dwarf culture, being from underground and all, but not all Dwarves do. In PF1 if I wanted to play a Dwarf who doesn't know the first thing about rocks, as he grew up in a port city on a sandbar, I would have to find something to trade Stonecunning away for. Sure, there were a lot of things you could trade stonecunning for, but what if none of them describe what I want my character to be or the ones that do involve other trades I don't want to make.

Now, I can just "elect not to take stonecunning" and take something else instead. It's not that I had the potential to know about rock formations, it's that I didn't bother to learn about them (or I lacked the opportunity) but lots of other dwarves might have.

We're assuming less about people from their ancestry, than we did from their race. Printing more ancestry feats is additive in that it expands the class of what dwarves can do or be, in a way that "Printing more alternative racial traits" was not as there were not, for example, any Dwarves who possessed Stonecunning who were also Barrow Scholars.

I am seeing an easy way to handle a feat like Racial Heritage in the new edition: You count as a member of the selected race for most prerequisites unless otherwise noted. You may take ancestry feats for that race but not heritage feats.

It's actually sort of worse, IMO. Previously, sure, you had the fact that Race was more like Physical Makeup+Culture.

But now....it's like all Elves have the potential to use a rapier. All elves have the potential to have their memory thing. All dwarves have the potential to know how to fight derro.

Inside of them. Because they're Elves. Or Dwarves. And it just magically manifests after X ammount of adventuring.

Like, it's now been completely decoupled from upbringing and just slapped into your physical makeup.

Now it's not "Oh, my Dwarf didn't grow up hating Orcs, so I trade that away at CC, and I can never get it back." Now it's "Oh, I've sure been fighting a lot of Orcs, better activate my Dwarfiness on next level up."

That seems way better. A dwarf tapping into their cultural hatred of orcs after several hostile encounters makes much more roleplaying sense. Anything that allows for more character choices is a good thing.

I'm hoping Half Elves gain their elven-side's Speed of 30.

I'm hoping they do away with half-breeds as distinct races entirely, and just have generic rules for how to cross two races together.

Ability boost of your choice in addition to the iconic ones is great. I guess it will be available to all ancestries

I wonder whether Humans will have a second ability boost of their choice and no ability flaw or two additional ability boosts of their choice and an ability flaw of their choice

I would enjoy the breadth of choice from the second option but I get how it could be too tempting for overoptimizers

Due to the common fantasy archetype of the human hero bringing the other races together I feel like humans should have +2 Charisma and +2 floating.

The Raven Black wrote:

Ability boost of your choice in addition to the iconic ones is great. I guess it will be available to all ancestries

I wonder whether Humans will have a second ability boost of their choice and no ability flaw or two additional ability boosts of their choice and an ability flaw of their choice

I would enjoy the breadth of choice from the second option but I get how it could be too tempting for overoptimizers

Due to the common fantasy archetype of the human hero bringing the other races together I feel like humans should have +2 Charisma and +2 floating.

Alternatively humans get +2 cha because they're the second biggest contributor of cross-species breeding behind dragons.

TheFinish wrote:

It's actually sort of worse, IMO. Previously, sure, you had the fact that Race was more like Physical Makeup+Culture.

But now....it's like all Elves have the potential to use a rapier. All elves have the potential to have their memory thing. All dwarves have the potential to know how to fight derro.

Inside of them. Because they're Elves. Or Dwarves. And it just magically manifests after X ammount of adventuring.

Like, it's now been completely decoupled from upbringing and just slapped into your physical makeup.

Now it's not "Oh, my Dwarf didn't grow up hating Orcs, so I trade that away at CC, and I can never get it back." Now it's "Oh, I've sure been fighting a lot of Orcs, better activate my Dwarfiness on next level up."

That seems way better. A dwarf tapping into their cultural hatred of orcs after several hostile encounters makes much more roleplaying sense. Anything that allows for more character choices is a good thing.

Only if those choices actually do stuff and are meta/powerful enough to be picked up. Look at what we have an how many half orcs don't have Sacred Tattoo?

Tapping into their Cultural Hatred(Oh so this is okay eh?) is a good roleplay moment. BUT it doesn't give the static bonuses of X so why would you pick it, you are bad player get out my game.

At least that's how the Forums seem to relate to this kind of stuff as a whole. We'll have options yes but how many of those are going to go instantly into the dumpster after launch? Or after a Splatbook?

Options only matter if they are actually Options.

Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:

I'm hoping Half Elves gain their elven-side's Speed of 30.

I'm hoping they do away with half-breeds as distinct races entirely, and just have generic rules for how to cross two races together.

Nah, Humans are far too breed-happy to not have entire races of crossbreeds. By your logic, we wouldn't have Teiflings or Aasimar either.

Grovestrider wrote:

I was looking forward to mixing a character's ancestry with heritage feats (Humans raised by Dwarves learning to hold their liquor w/ the Hardy heritage feat; or Gnomes raised by Elves w/ the Keen Hearing heritage feat). I guess that may very well be just one MORE disappointment.

I also am against having the base speed (or stride) of a race be an odd number. It really does muck things up when things like the Hampered or Slowed conditions come up.

That depends how these work. If it is a flat: Reduce speed by 5' or 10' then being odd or not is immaterial.

From the Rogue Class Preview, Mobility seems to be confirmed as half normal speed. Which seems like it would be annoying with odd numbers and 5-foot-squares. Round up or down?

TheFinish wrote:

It's actually sort of worse, IMO. Previously, sure, you had the fact that Race was more like Physical Makeup+Culture.

But now....it's like all Elves have the potential to use a rapier. All elves have the potential to have their memory thing. All dwarves have the potential to know how to fight derro.

Inside of them. Because they're Elves. Or Dwarves. And it just magically manifests after X ammount of adventuring.

Like, it's now been completely decoupled from upbringing and just slapped into your physical makeup.

Now it's not "Oh, my Dwarf didn't grow up hating Orcs, so I trade that away at CC, and I can never get it back." Now it's "Oh, I've sure been fighting a lot of Orcs, better activate my Dwarfiness on next level up."

That seems way better. A dwarf tapping into their cultural hatred of orcs after several hostile encounters makes much more roleplaying sense. Anything that allows for more character choices is a good thing.

That's the thing! It's no longer cultural, it's just part of "being a dwarf". You don't need to be raised amongst dwarves, you don't need to even live near one. You're a Dwarf, ergo, you may, at any moment of your life, irrespective of the situation, decide to be better at fighting Derros/Orcs/What have you. Simply because you're a Dwarf.

Sure, the old Alternate Racial Traits weren't as flexible, but at least it was a tangible choice. If you swapped out Hatred, because you said your Dwarf wasn't like that, you could never get it back.

Now, not only have we punished people that liked the Races as they were (since it's impossible to play a Dwarf as they were in PF1 from the get-go), you've also now implied that just being a Dwarf, or an Elf, or what have you means you have access to everything, completely separate from how your character actually grew up, simply because of what they are.

bookrat wrote:

Is there anyone else who's not a fan of "only at first level" feats? There are times when I want to incorporate a background feat or heritage feat into my character, but don't have enough feats to accomplish what I want.

I also like the idea of discovering yourself in such a manner that an ancestry feat only reveals itself at a later time.

I mean, I understand the rationale behind 1st-level-only, I just don't always like it. Perhaps it's my experiences with PF1, where taking a background feat that looked really cool just didn't help out much when I needed that other feat to be competent in combat.

And perhaps my issue could even be alleviated if we started the game with two (or more) ancestry feats right at the beginning.

I'm okay with level 1 only feats IF they don't conflict with other feats.

In other words, there is just a list of feat that can only be taken at level 1 and you are given a feat (or feats) that can only be spent on those feats.

That would be a workable solution.

No gobos in dorf hatred? hmm, probably for the best not to have dorfs hate a new core race :)

I like the ancestry heritage feats being physiologic and locked at first level. These seem ripe for retraining abuse otherwise. Also, some unintended multi-ancestry hybrid shenanigans.

I am wondering why make the change here. they're keeping the hatred of orcs so unless half orcs no longer count under new rules then goblins being made core isn't it. The 5 kings mountains were hit during the goblinblood war so the lore reason for hating them is still there (Though to be far that applies to pretty much any non goblinoid race living in Avistan).

You're a Dwarf, ergo, you may, at any moment of your life, irrespective of the situation, decide to be better at fighting Derros/Orcs/What have you. Simply because you're a Dwarf.

I would ask a player who took that feat to explain what part of their upbringing, training justifies it. Like you can just say "the training I received as a youth has come into sharp relief with the benefit of experience" and that would be fine. One would take that feat to reflect what their dwarf learned in their formative years, presumably.

Like, take the feats that define your character in the way you want them to, not the ones that don't. If you want a Dwarf that has never seen an Orc before, don't take that feat.

But in terms of "why did you get this bonus at 9th level and not sooner" it's just the classic "flashback training montage" trope in action movies, if you like.

I very much like what I am seeing from the ancestry previews. I am going to enjoy playing an elf again.

To me, that just sounds like they (the devs) need to do a very good job of separating "ancestry" and "background" better -- pushing much, much more into background.

It would imply that where we saw "ancestry" feats in the level progression blog, it should be "background" feats (with maybe a few ancestry ones available). It also feels like you might need two background for most characters to capture the aspects the dev's had been talking about.

Ie. You are (ancestry) a dwarf. You were raised (background) in a dwarven stronghold. Your early training (background) was helping your family in the smithy.

vs.

You are (ancestry) a dwarf. You were raised (background) in a sprawling multicultural metropolis. You've (background) helped in the family store (merchant).

My impression is the dev's want to support that style, but streamlined it for the "simple" case of ancestry & culture matching, where background is a finer-tuning of things. Their ABC approach is elegant, but yes I think its a little susceptible to being overly simple for the cross-culture characters people want to tell stories with.

Just gonna throw out there that the old trope of nimble elves in the woods being a terrifying thing actually looks to play out in this system. A few underleveled archer NPCs and a few underleveled illusionist NPCs together could rapidly turn itself into a Tucker's Kobolds, but with elves. This wasn't nearly as easy to pull off in PF1.

TheFinish wrote:

You're a Dwarf, ergo, you may, at any moment of your life, irrespective of the situation, decide to be better at fighting Derros/Orcs/What have you. Simply because you're a Dwarf.

Like, take the feats that define your character in the way you want them to, not the ones that don't. If you want a Dwarf that has never seen an Orc before, don't take that feat.

But in terms of "why did you get this bonus at 9th level and not sooner" it's just the classic "flashback training montage" trope in action movies, if you like.

Yeah, if an option doesn't fit your character... don't take that option.

Just gonna throw out there that the old trope of nimble elves in the woods being a terrifying thing actually looks to play out in this system. A few underleveled archer NPCs and a few underleveled illusionist NPCs together could rapidly turn itself into a Tucker's Kobolds, but with elves. This wasn't nearly as easy to pull off in PF1.

Yeah, Nimble combined with existing high speed is vicious. Assuming difficult terrain is still two squares, it gives you 20 feet of movement through difficult terrain per action. That gets ugly quick with hit and run tactics. I mean, two actions of that are 40 feet. A Human can't even manage that by spending all three of theirs!

[disappointed] What? No ancestry feat for Nekkid Beard Dance, which is a time-honored tradition among Chelaxian dwarves?!? I'm shocked, Logan, shocked to my core![/disappointed]

Yeah, if an option doesn't fit your character... don't take that option.

Like if you zoom out and consider the entire decision tree of "ways your character could evolve over 20 levels" you're going to end up with some pretty absurd possibilities. Just like your "Dwarf who never saw an orc for (as many levels as it takes to get the last ancestry feat) but is suddenly good at fighting them" every first level Pathfinder 1st edition character could take levels in 19 more classes and take "Exotic Weapon Proficiency" with every single feat.

It's just that nobody chooses to do the latter because it makes no sense, so why do the former if it makes no sense.

Folk is as singular as people is.

Folk is as singular as people is.

I am sorry but "these folk" just doesn't sound right.

Sounds fine to me.

From the Rogue Class Preview, Mobility seems to be confirmed as half normal speed. Which seems like it would be annoying with odd numbers and 5-foot-squares. Round up or down?

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that.

You still get edge cases in PF1 if you have a 30' move and want to mix in some diagonal movement. With 30' you can move diagonally twice or non-diagonally three times. But, if you mix them you can only do one of each in a move action.

I wonder if striding twice needs to be spent as two separate actions. i.e. does a character with a 25' move who strides twice have 50' of movement to spend or 25' of movement twice. They have different behaviour. In difficult terrain an elf can move 6 squares non-diagonally, if you get to combine the stride actions a character with 25' of movement can move 5 squares non-diagonally, if you don't get to combine them it can only move 4 squares non-diagonally.

TheFinish wrote:

So...at the risk of being "that guy"...

This is just PF1 Races. You've added Hit Points, and then turned most of the other Racial Traits into either Heritage Feats or Ancestry Feats.

Big difference from where I see it is now your Race/Ancestry doesn't give you anything except size, base movement, hit points, attribute adjustments, special vision, and access to Ancestry/Heritage feats.

As opposed to in PF1 where Race gave size, base movement, attribute adjustments, special vision, and a whole bunch of assorted bonuses that you could eventually trade away for alternative racial traits once those were printed. But it still gave the impression "all elves can use a rapier", "all Dwarves hate orcs", etc. because you had to actively trade away the thing you didn't want rather than simply selecting the thing you did want.

Instead, now, to print options for "some elves are like this" instead of "alternative racial traits" we can just print new ancestry feats.

Yeah, but in P1e, I'd start out with "a whole bunch of assorted bonuses" or their trade-outs in alternate racial traits. In P2e, it sounds like I start out with one (maybe two) bonuses. I'm concerned that the races ancestries may feel watered down, as a result.

If I play a halfling, can I have Halfling Luck and Keen Senses and Sure Footing and Weapon Familiarity like I can in P1e? If so, how high-level must I be to accumulate everything I could have at 1st-level in the old system?

Stone Dog wrote:

Folk is as singular as people is.

I am sorry but "these folk" just doesn't sound right.

Regardless, it is valid. See:

plural folk
the masses of people in a homogeneous social group as contrasted with the individual or with a selected class : the great proportion of the members of a people that determines the group character and that tends to preserve its characteristic form of civilization and its customs, arts and crafts, legends, traditions, and superstitions from generation to generation (e.g., the Folk of the Air, the Folk of the Fringe)

Alright, seriously, I like the use of backgrounds, which seem to be just as generic as I was hoping for. I will be interesting to see how they all play together with archetypes and other types of feats.

I also like how archetype feats seem to be "half-feats", kind of like upgraded traits and racial features from PF1. That is exactly what I was hoping they would be. And I love it that you gain archetype feats automatically at certain levels!

I do have a question, though: do backgrounds also include options for your social status, i.e. could I create a nobleman fighter, or a Galtian revolutionary? I'd hazard a guess that you can, considering merchant is one of background mentioned in the article...

Another question: can archetype feats be "upgraded" or taken more than once? For example, that feat which grants goblins bite attack, will the damage improve or your teeth ignore at least some DR as you go up in levels?

No gobos in dorf hatred?

LOL They've had ten whole years and if dwarves are known for anything, it's quickly changing their minds and not holding a grudge. ;)

I can see this though Dwarves tend to be gruff and somewhat unwelcoming to new comers. Great at parties if you're friends with them or get them drunk.

Clearly everyone prefers goblins at parties with their bonus in cha, even other dwarves!