Big Beards and Pointy Ears

Quote:

...when we talk about another class elves' Intelligence points toward: the alchemist!

Did you miss a word by any chance?

No. If he wanted not to end a clause with a preposition, he could have said "...when we talk about another class toward which elves' Intelligence points: the alchemist!" But in common speech, "Look at the sign I'm pointing to" is just as intelligible as "Look at the sign to which I'm pointing."

Quote:

These fine folk...

Folk is singular, it should be "This fine folk".

As others have said, either "folk" or "folks" are accepted plural forms of folk.

You're right about the unnecessary commas, however.

Bardic Dave wrote:

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.

It's definitely something I'll have my eye on, speaking as one of those concerned about being able to fulfill the same concepts at character creation that 1e permitted.

You're right about the unnecessary commas, however.

What, is it, that you are, trying to, say?

So,uh... A naturally hardy dwarf isn't going to have been trained in his ancestral weapons or tactics during his and/or her backstory?
Interesting.

Is a flat out sprint just three strides? Do people need a feat for it?

I will describe my anticipation of Monday as equal parts dread and excitement. Press the ingredients with a small amount of impatience, then allow to precipitate through the weekend into a delightfully uncomfortable agitation. Unstable, but potentially useful so long as proper safety measures are kept.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

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.

The thing is: whether I take them or not, they are there.

The setting, and the system, are saying "Since you are a Dwarf, and only because you are a Dwarf, you can do these things."

And then, in the Ancestry Feat selection, giving me things that are clearly cultural. Things that are obvious not every Dwarf should have (for that matter, things that really shouldn't be only for Dwarfs). But I have access to them, at any time, because I'm a Dwarf.

Remember, people used to be (rightfully) skeptical when a PF1 Race assumed all Dwarves had a racial Hatred for Goblinoids, countering that not every Dwarf should have this, due to it being clearly cultural. Thus, a Dwarf not raised in such an enviroment would not have the prejudice.

PF1's Alternate Racial Traits ensured this was actually enforced. If your Dwarf didn't grow up in such an enviroment, and lost Hatred (say, he took Saltbeard), then he truly lost it. He was not entitled to then re-acquire Hatred (a clearly cultural stigma) on the basis of his physical makeup (being a Dwarf).

But PF2 is saying: you never really lost it. Every Dwarf, everywhere, can have Ancient Hatred. Not because of any external factors, but simply because they are a Dwarf.

I understand about player choice, I am merely pointing out the wider implications of making obviously cultural choices available to someone simply because of their baseline physical traits. This is precisely what the Ancestry Feat system does.

Of course, my biggest complaint is what they've made into feats, so that I literally cannot play a PF1 Dwarf in PF2. I can't have a Dwarf that starts with Ancestral Hatred, Weapon Familiarity, Hardy, Stonecunning and Greed to represent a Dwarf raised in a traiditional Golarion Dwarf Hold. I have to pick and choose, and then magically acquire my other abilities as I level up, somehow becoming Dwarfier at set intervals.

We actually do know how HP are determined, thanks to the leveling up blog. Your class gives you a fixed number of hit points as a base (the example was 8 for the cleric). So the biggest difference this should make will be for your starting HP. After that you should progress pretty similarly to everyone else of a similar class-HP type.

EDIT: beaten to the punch :D

Personally not super stoked about that. Magic number HP per level and three racial ability bonuses and one penalty (as far as we know, "boost" and "flaw" could mean something else, but probably not) seems an effort to try to level the "gaps" between characters. Making everyone closer to each other in terms of raw stats.

When building a character, deciding which stat(s) would have to take a hit was always a more poignant choice than which stats would get buffs. Now, not so much.

Other than that I don't find much to comment on.

That's my big thing - its not so much the BIG features like Hardy and Ancestral Weapon Familiarity being choices (though I really wish I didn't have to choose), its the small features like Stonecunning, Greed, and Ancestral Hatred being the sorts of things that you will never blow a feat on being locked away from most dwarves.

I like that my Dwarven Grognard of a fighter knows a thing or two about gems and when stonework looks....just a bit off without having to devote any real build space to being good at it and I sort of feel like those sorts of things should be baked into Ancestry rather than being feats you need to devote build space to because you never ever will - they're simply too situational when there are options like Hardy and Weapon Familiarity out there for you.

I really like that we got two new ancestries!
And these ancestries feats sounds very easy to homerule, either by making new ones or just removing them from the list.
I guess one point of interest that will be looked at a lot will be the number of starting Ancestry feats... I must confess that my first reflex would be to let my players take 2... But we'll have to see the balancing of the playtest. Maybe two give too much power to 1st lvl characters? But again, it'll be VERY easy to homerule, like the starting number of traits when you use them (usually 2+1 if drawback, but I often let my player take one bonus if they made a good background story with lot of hooks for me to build the story).
Elves that run a lot: Woah! That bring back memories from Dark Sun! And that feels awesome.
I also really like the memory thing. :3

I'm getting more and more excited each new blog post!
I can't wait to see the alchemist.

... in common speech, "Look at the sign I'm pointing to" is just as intelligible as "Look at the sign to which I'm pointing."

Do you actually know anyone who uses "the sign to which I'm pointing" in everyday speech? I'm pretty sure I don't.

You're right about the unnecessary commas, however.

That always seems like a style thing to me. YMMV.

Seems interesting. Those are some classic and good options. Hoping the list of customizations open from these ancestries are quite large.

Just saying I like the idea of growing into multiple race/ancestry feats, like higher power races were modeled by taking feats. Maybe modelling some of these on Traits, i.e. 2 for 1, to get more breadth in Ancestry features "exhibited" in each character... perhaps with one Ancestry Feat you can pick two Ancestry Traits or one stronger Ancestry Feat, for example. Although that points to need to more strongly police balance, unlike P1E... perhaps safer approach is offering 'package Feats' which approximate 2 lower power Traits, and it will be common to see different Feats sharing a 'component Trait', but over-all Feat-level balance can be more proprely ensured? (alternatively, that can be spun as 'Feat Variants' altering one component of existing Feat). Baking into advancement curve the idea characters will augment their 1st level pick with more pick(s) later on (not 'competing' against non-ancestral feats) may be good as well. (more than 1 additional 'free' Ancestral pick doesn't seem necessary)

I think commentary shows the audience may benefit from mention in Core Rules that rule mechanics don't dictate how one envisions one's character, that just because one didn't have X Feat until Level 10 doesn't mean one's character didn't have an affinity for X all along, the Feat is just gamist contruct allowing specific mechanical benefits in encounters.

Can't believe the massive tone shift between this thread and the G*b*** one...
Oh well, at least now I know for sure that the new base speed is 5sq.

p.s. They forgot to remove "racial" in...

(...) ...their low racial hit points of 6. (...)

I like the breaking of racial traits into more digestable customizable chunks. I was talking with my partner about this change in PF2E, and she said something to the effect of, "Thank god. One of the main reasons I never wanted to be a Dwarf was I looked at their racial entry and they had like... 15 different things I needed to write down."

That's my big thing - its not so much the BIG features like Hardy and Ancestral Weapon Familiarity being choices (though I really wish I didn't have to choose), its the small features like Stonecunning, Greed, and Ancestral Hatred being the sorts of things that you will never blow a feat on being locked away from most dwarves.

I like that my Dwarven Grognard of a fighter knows a thing or two about gems and when stonework looks....just a bit off without having to devote any real build space to being good at it and I sort of feel like those sorts of things should be baked into Ancestry rather than being feats you need to devote build space to because you never ever will - they're simply too situational when there are options like Hardy and Weapon Familiarity out there for you.

Even stuff like Weapon Familiarity is in kind of a "eh" spot. If you're any kind of Martial class, and presumably get tons of weapon proficiencies anyway, why take it?

In PF1 all the weapon familiarity traits where a way of saying "No matter what you later chose in life, your character learned to wield these weapons". It was a free thing on top of everything else, letting you play something like a Dwarf Wizard with a bonded Dwarven Waraxe.

PF2 lets me do that....at the expense of being a Dwarf Wizard that trained to fight Derros. Or a Dwarf Wizard that's really good at telling the value of gems. Or a Dwarf Wizard that resist poisons better.

I mean, just the includion of "1st Level Only" feats immediately divides Feats into "look at them immediately" and "maybe consider them for later." So of course the ones that are 1st level only will be more powerful, they have to justify eating your 1st Ancestry Feat.

I think a much better solution would just to do "Okay, at 1st level, choose any Five of these Ancestry Feats" (or whatever number is appropiate). Then have Ancestry Feats available at later levels that build upon those chosen at 1st. That way you have character choice at the beginning with room for growth without kneecapping 1st level concepts.

But PF2 is saying: you never really lost it. Every Dwarf, everywhere, can have Ancient Hatred. Not because of any external factors, but simply because they are a Dwarf.

Is this really different from how every single person on the planet below level 20 can become a sorcerer, because they can gain enough XP to level up and take a level of sorcerer. Even though "being a sorcerer" is supposed to reflect something magical in your blood?

Like is "I can become a sorcerer just because I'm alive, even if I want to declare that there's absolutely nothing unusual going on in my family tree" all that different from "I can have ancestral hatred just because I'm a Dwarf, even if I declare that I didn't grow up in an environment where Orcs and Derros were even a concern"? Feels like when you take a level of Sorcerer you're saying something about your bloodline, just like when you take an obviously cultural ancestry feat you're saying something about your upbringing.

Planpanther wrote:

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. ;)

As noted, this is more of a concession to the fact that Golarion Dwarves never really had a grudge against goblins in the first place. The bonus was there purely as a legacy issue from 3.5.

TheFinish wrote:

But PF2 is saying: you never really lost it. Every Dwarf, everywhere, can have Ancient Hatred. Not because of any external factors, but simply because they are a Dwarf.

Is this really different from how every single person on the planet below level 20 can become a sorcerer, because they can gain enough XP to level up and take a level of sorcerer. Even though "being a sorcerer" is supposed to reflect something magical in your blood?

Like is "I can become a sorcerer just because I'm alive, even if I want to declare that there's absolutely nothing unusual going on in my family tree" all that different from "I can have ancestral hatred just because I'm a Dwarf, even if I declare that I didn't grow up in an environment where Orcs and Derros were even a concern"? Feels like when you take a level of Sorcerer you're saying something about your bloodline, just like when you take an obviously cultural ancestry feat you're saying something about your upbringing.

Furthermore, if you only used Core in PF1, even if you said in you BG that you were a Dwarf raised by Elves, you HAD to have the racial hatred... and even if you had access to the alternate traits, you could just not change it. It's not more or less loose than PF1 in PF2. As a DM, if someone put they don't hate orcs in their BGs and later try to take "Hatred: orc", if they don't have a good reason, I'll say no.

Also, I saw some saying some cultural feats didn't make sense to be available only to certain ancestries... and what if other ancestries don't get the same ones, or very similar ones? I mean, we already see it with the hatred feat of Dwarves toward orcs and giants and the one Elves can get toward demons...

I really like the look, sound, and feel of this. There's been barely more than a glimpse of these three ancestries so far, and yet they already feel radically different, both from each other and from how they worked in PF1. I'm excited by the notion that your choice of ancestry continues to have meaningful impact throughout the life of your character. I will probably still never play a dwarf or an elf or a goblin given the choice, but for the first time it might actually be tempting. That's a huge step up in my book.

I primarily play wizards and other casters so I LOVE the extra 5ft to get into the best possible position before unleashing a volley of magic. Running away is a wonderful backup plan, though. ;)

Here we see another heritage/ancestry blog post that really points to the missed opportunity of NOT having half-breeds built into the system. A 'dwarf-blooded' 1st level only feat that allows selection of dwarf ancestry feats on following levels (and perhaps grants a specific minor 'dwarfy bonus', like a reduced hardy effect - 2 extra hp perhaps).

Even stuff like Weapon Familiarity is in kind of a "eh" spot. If you're any kind of Martial class, and presumably get tons of weapon proficiencies anyway, why take it?

Because I am a dang dwarf man!

If I want to play an Inquisitor or a Rogue I shouldn't have to forget how to use an axe or a hammer or a pick!

For martials, its a pair of free exotic weapon proficiencies. I have had dwarven barbarians wielding the ugrosh and many the Dwarf fighter with the oversized 1 handed axe. But yeah having to pick between that and Hardy is still pretty heavily in Hardy's favor but it at least approaches a level of utility where I could reasonably see someone choosing it over Hardy.

It was a free thing on top of everything else, letting you play something like a Dwarf Wizard with a bonded Dwarven Waraxe.

Actually it didn't - it made a Dwarven waraxe a martial weapon, it let you have a Battleaxe as your bonded weapon as a wizard. Same as an elf really. No Elven Curveblades, but longswords and bows were now free.

Here we see another heritage/ancestry blog post that really points to the missed opportunity of NOT having half-breeds built into the system. A 'dwarf-blooded' 1st level only feat that allows selection of dwarf ancestry feats on following levels (and perhaps grants a specific minor 'dwarfy bonus', like a reduced hardy effect - 2 extra hp perhaps).

Please stop using the term half-breed. Perhaps you're not American and don't feel the sting of the term very hard but its a very loaded word here, especially in the South where I live.

Here we see another heritage/ancestry blog post that really points to the missed opportunity of NOT having half-breeds built into the system. A 'dwarf-blooded' 1st level only feat that allows selection of dwarf ancestry feats on following levels (and perhaps grants a specific minor 'dwarfy bonus', like a reduced hardy effect - 2 extra hp perhaps).

Wait... since when there is a half dwarf in pathfinder?

It isn't a missed opportunity either way, because people actually expect them to be in said systems. Half elf and half orc are races, they should have their own entries, same way dwarfs,elves,humans, etc. Guess if a half dwarf was made, then it also should be it's own thing.

I think you screwed the elf too much with that hit die

its a deal breaker

Further, since Ancestry feats are still gated by Ancestry, rather than Background, you run into the issue of your Dwarf suddenly getting Weapon Familiarity...because they're a Dwarf. When in fact, anybody could concievably get training in those. Same for Ancestral Hatred.

I believe the weapon familiarity is sort of an improved, yet specific, variation of a proficiency feat. So yes, non-dwarves can take the proficiency in axes as a general feat, but dwarves can take it as an ancestry feat, granting MORE to them.

I think you screwed the elf too much with that hit die

its a deal breaker

4 less hp is not that much. This is not a reduction every level, this is less 'bonus' ancestry hit points (in addition to the class-based hit dice we have now).

Steelfiredragon wrote:

I think you screwed the elf too much with that hit die

its a deal breaker

4 less hp is not that much. This is not a reduction every level, this is less 'bonus' ancestry hit points (in addition to the class-based hit dice we have now).

3 less would have been better

CraziFuzzy wrote:

Here we see another heritage/ancestry blog post that really points to the missed opportunity of NOT having half-breeds built into the system. A 'dwarf-blooded' 1st level only feat that allows selection of dwarf ancestry feats on following levels (and perhaps grants a specific minor 'dwarfy bonus', like a reduced hardy effect - 2 extra hp perhaps).

Wait... since when there is a half dwarf in pathfinder?

It isn't a missed opportunity either way, because people actually expect them to be in said systems. Half elf and half orc are races, they should have their own entries, same way dwarfs,elves,humans, etc. Guess if a half dwarf was made, then it also should be it's own thing.

The point being - WHY are half-elf and half-orc their own races? It's something that never really made sense, and having the ability to make the ability to 'cross-breed' races in the core system would obsolete their necessity (thus opening up space for Kobold and Orc in the 'core 8).

CraziFuzzy wrote:

Steelfiredragon wrote:

I think you screwed the elf too much with that hit die

its a deal breaker

4 less hp is not that much. This is not a reduction every level, this is less 'bonus' ancestry hit points (in addition to the class-based hit dice we have now).

3 less would have been better

really? 1 hp is the deal breaker?

The point being - WHY are half-elf and half-orc their own races? It's something that never really made sense, and having the ability to make the ability to 'cross-breed' races in the core system would obsolete their necessity.

Half-orc is because Wizards didn't have the cajones to include Orc as a player race fearing the sort of backlash we are seeing for goblins right now. We probably SHOULD drop the half from half-orc already.

Half-elves are their own race because half-elves play a large role in several iconic fantasy settings to include both Lord of the Rings and Shannara.

Dwarves are still +2 Wis -2 Cha when Golarion dwarves are highly personable people who worship a highly intelligent god of crafting?

Elves are still +2 Int -2 Con when Golarion elf culture revolves around communing with nature and adapting to the environment?

I thought this game was going to focus more on Golarion? Why keep these races the same when you finally have a chance to escape 3rd Edition's shadow?

CraziFuzzy wrote:

The point being - WHY are half-elf and half-orc their own races? It's something that never really made sense, and having the ability to make the ability to 'cross-breed' races in the core system would obsolete their necessity.

Half-orc is because Wizards didn't have the cajones to include Orc as a player race fearing the sort of backlash we are seeing for goblins right now. We probably SHOULD drop the half from half-orc already.

Half-elves are their own race because half-elves play a large role in several iconic fantasy settings to include both Lord of the Rings and Shannara.

But you can be a half elf without having half elves be a distinct race of their own (and thus requiring every other half race combo to have its own distinct race). Just have the rules say "to make a half race, choose two races and [blah blah blah]".

TheFinish wrote:

Even stuff like Weapon Familiarity is in kind of a "eh" spot. If you're any kind of Martial class, and presumably get tons of weapon proficiencies anyway, why take it?

Because I am a dang dwarf man!

If I want to play an Inquisitor or a Rogue I shouldn't have to forget how to use an axe or a hammer or a pick!

For martials, its a pair of free exotic weapon proficiencies. I have had dwarven barbarians wielding the ugrosh and many the Dwarf fighter with the oversized 1 handed axe. But yeah having to pick between that and Hardy is still pretty heavily in Hardy's favor but it at least approaches a level of utility where I could reasonably see someone choosing it over Hardy.

TheFinish wrote:

It was a free thing on top of everything else, letting you play something like a Dwarf Wizard with a bonded Dwarven Waraxe.

Actually it didn't - it made a Dwarven waraxe a martial weapon, it let you have a Battleaxe as your bonded weapon as a wizard. Same as an elf really. No Elven Curveblades, but longswords and bows were now free.

I agree with you entirely. A Player should be able to choose at the beginning just how traditional of a Dwarf he is. It should be just as valid to begin being the Dwarfiest of all PF1 Dwarfs as it is to begin as the Dwarf farmer surrounded by Half-Orc neighbors who wouldn't be able to tell an ruby from a garnet if they had tags on them.

But we can't, sadly. But hey, we can try and change it in the playtest.

I don't know what the backgrounds will grant in terms of unique bonuses, but an "Adopted" background sounds like an obvious way to take advantage of the heritage distinction.

I think I'm now most looking forward to the half-elf ancestry feats. Elf and dwarf were a good choice for this preview!

Nox Aeterna wrote:

CraziFuzzy wrote:

Here we see another heritage/ancestry blog post that really points to the missed opportunity of NOT having half-breeds built into the system. A 'dwarf-blooded' 1st level only feat that allows selection of dwarf ancestry feats on following levels (and perhaps grants a specific minor 'dwarfy bonus', like a reduced hardy effect - 2 extra hp perhaps).

Wait... since when there is a half dwarf in pathfinder?

It isn't a missed opportunity either way, because people actually expect them to be in said systems. Half elf and half orc are races, they should have their own entries, same way dwarfs,elves,humans, etc. Guess if a half dwarf was made, then it also should be it's own thing.

The point being - WHY are half-elf and half-orc their own races? It's something that never really made sense, and having the ability to make the ability to 'cross-breed' races in the core system would obsolete their necessity (thus opening up space for Kobold and Orc in the 'core 8).

Simply because of the things the devs already stated they are trying to do is keep the current PF players.

Adding a goblin is something on itself that will cause some issues, but removing core races the current players and GMs expect in the game to add others?

That is a red flag.

Half dwarf isnt a current race, reason it isnt mentioned, even if it could be added down the line ofc, the other 2 are.

Steelfiredragon wrote:

CraziFuzzy wrote:

Steelfiredragon wrote:

I think you screwed the elf too much with that hit die

its a deal breaker

4 less hp is not that much. This is not a reduction every level, this is less 'bonus' ancestry hit points (in addition to the class-based hit dice we have now).

3 less would have been better

really? 1 hp is the deal breaker?

yes,,,, seriously we can stop here, I was only doing that because of the paladin threads that had someone in stating that if they opened it up to all... it would be a deal breaker for them.

CraziFuzzy wrote:

The point being - WHY are half-elf and half-orc their own races? It's something that never really made sense, and having the ability to make the ability to 'cross-breed' races in the core system would obsolete their necessity.

Half-orc is because Wizards didn't have the cajones to include Orc as a player race fearing the sort of backlash we are seeing for goblins right now. We probably SHOULD drop the half from half-orc already.

Half-elves are their own race because half-elves play a large role in several iconic fantasy settings to include both Lord of the Rings and Shannara.

And most of those 'iconic' half-elves are aberrations, not part of a large half-elven race. The ability to actually build them as one-off's just makes for a better base for character creation and world inspiration.

] But you can be a half elf without having half elves be a distinct race of their own (and thus requiring every other half race combo to have its own distinct race). Just have the rules say "to make a half race, choose two races and [blah blah blah]".

Name for me even a single iconic half-dwarf or half-gnome anywhere in fantasy and I'll bite here.

The closest thing I can think of is the rumors that the Took family of hobbits in Lord of the rings with a little elven blood in them somewhere but even that is something can be well represented without full on Half-elf, half-halfling having its own rules. But, they actually ARE their own subrace (the Tallfellows) in 3.5 and 5e, without too much fuss or muss!

CraziFuzzy wrote:

Nox Aeterna wrote:

CraziFuzzy wrote:

Here we see another heritage/ancestry blog post that really points to the missed opportunity of NOT having half-breeds built into the system. A 'dwarf-blooded' 1st level only feat that allows selection of dwarf ancestry feats on following levels (and perhaps grants a specific minor 'dwarfy bonus', like a reduced hardy effect - 2 extra hp perhaps).

Wait... since when there is a half dwarf in pathfinder?

It isn't a missed opportunity either way, because people actually expect them to be in said systems. Half elf and half orc are races, they should have their own entries, same way dwarfs,elves,humans, etc. Guess if a half dwarf was made, then it also should be it's own thing.

The point being - WHY are half-elf and half-orc their own races? It's something that never really made sense, and having the ability to make the ability to 'cross-breed' races in the core system would obsolete their necessity (thus opening up space for Kobold and Orc in the 'core 8).

Simply because of the things the devs already stated they are trying to do is keep the current PF players.

Adding a goblin is something on itself that will cause some issues, but removing core races the current players and GMs expect in the game to add others?

That is a red flag.

Half dwarf isnt a current race, reason it isnt mentioned, even if it could be added down the line ofc, the other 2 are.

Based on how 'generic' half-elves in pf1 are, I can't see how simply choosing human with the elf-blooded feat, or vice versa, in pf2 would turn people away. The same could be said for half-orcs (choosing orc with the human-blooded, or vice versa). What this DOES do is allow DWORCS and DWELFS, right out of the core, which I have seen homebrewed so many times that it's odd that the devs didn't look in that direction.

Right now it seems Half-Blooded is a better term than using the other word. To be honest, I like the concept of Half-Blood as its own Ancestry, and expand upon it so you can half a Half-Blooded Elf, a Half-Blooded Dwarf, a Half-Blooded Orc, and so forth. It would also allow for an early inclusion of the Aasimar and Tiefling, though I know some folk want them as their own distinct Ancestries for some reason probably related to some source book I never purchased.

The disadvantage to such a system is it would risk having half-elves and half-orcs be given less attention. I will admit it would be interesting to see if they include Ancestry Feats to make some half-elves more "elfy" or more human-like. Also, it may be that half-elves will have one set attribute (Dexterity in all likelihood) and one floating, while half-orcs would have a different set attribute (let's go with Constitution to make it more varied than the generic "strength" upgrade)... and humans end up with two floating attributes to give them something unique.

It may also be interesting if they included an Ancestry Feat for Elves for human-blooded - that they have a parent or grandparent who is half-elven and as a result might not be allowed certain Ancestry Feats but can take one or two specific types of Human Ancestry Feats.

And most of those 'iconic' half-elves are aberrations, not part of a large half-elven race. The ability to actually build them as one-off's just makes for a better base for character creation and world inspiration.

We have at this point like a dozen or so generations of family tree in Shannara with the Ohmsfords all being, basically "half-elven"

And in Lord of the Rings lore, sure Arwen's children are one of a kind, but there's a number of other examples of the semi-elven men in Silmarillion.

It's A Thing. Half-dwarf just isn't.

JRutterbush wrote:

] But you can be a half elf without having half elves be a distinct race of their own (and thus requiring every other half race combo to have its own distinct race). Just have the rules say "to make a half race, choose two races and [blah blah blah]".

Name for me even a single iconic half-dwarf or half-gnome anywhere in fantasy and I'll bite here.

The closest thing I can think of is the rumors that the Took family of hobbits in Lord of the rings with a little elven blood in them somewhere but even that is something can be well represented without full on Half-elf, half-halfling having its own rules. But, they actually ARE their own subrace (the Tallfellows) in 3.5 and 5e, without too much fuss or muss!

So proper game design has to have existed in 80 year old novel form before it makes sense to allow in pathfinder?

As I posted earlier, I am hoping immensely for there to be more than just the old 7 races + gobs. Give us at least 12 races in the CRB to go with the 12 classes in the CRB. Give us two iconics per class, so each race in the book can have both a male and female iconic right there in the CRB.

While I agree that half-races should be a constructed / template thing, I'm not sure whether we can convince Paizo to do so. However, I do also have suggestions for that as well later in the thread linked above.

Right now it seems Half-Blooded is a better term than using the other word. To be honest, I like the concept of Half-Blood as its own Ancestry, and expand upon it so you can half a Half-Blooded Elf, a Half-Blooded Dwarf, a Half-Blooded Orc, and so forth. It would also allow for an early inclusion of the Aasimar and Tiefling, though I know some folk want them as their own distinct Ancestries for some reason probably related to some source book I never purchased.

The disadvantage to such a system is it would risk having half-elves and half-orcs be given less attention. I will admit it would be interesting to see if they include Ancestry Feats to make some half-elves more "elfy" or more human-like. Also, it may be that half-elves will have one set attribute (Dexterity in all likelihood) and one floating, while half-orcs would have a different set attribute (let's go with Constitution to make it more varied than the generic "strength" upgrade)... and humans end up with two floating attributes to give them something unique.

It may also be interesting if they included an Ancestry Feat for Elves for human-blooded - that they have a parent or grandparent who is half-elven and as a result might not be allowed certain Ancestry Feats but can take one or two specific types of Human Ancestry Feats.

Honestly, just go with Bastard - its the term Paizo uses and sidesteps the entire grim history of human chattel with some measure of grace.

That said, I strongly disagree with that solution - the various ancestries as currently constituted are just so different from one another and you end up turning the Bastard into this thing that is, de facto, like a dozen different ancestries anyway.

JRutterbush wrote:

] But you can be a half elf without having half elves be a distinct race of their own (and thus requiring every other half race combo to have its own distinct race). Just have the rules say "to make a half race, choose two races and [blah blah blah]".

Name for me even a single iconic half-dwarf or half-gnome anywhere in fantasy and I'll bite here.

Since when is having been an iconic character in fantasy a requirement for something being an option in Pathfinder? My suggestion gives more ways to build new characters while still allowing the old ones, that's a strict upgrade, whether you want to play one or not.

eddv wrote:

JRutterbush wrote:

] But you can be a half elf without having half elves be a distinct race of their own (and thus requiring every other half race combo to have its own distinct race). Just have the rules say "to make a half race, choose two races and [blah blah blah]".

Name for me even a single iconic half-dwarf or half-gnome anywhere in fantasy and I'll bite here.

The closest thing I can think of is the rumors that the Took family of hobbits in Lord of the rings with a little elven blood in them somewhere but even that is something can be well represented without full on Half-elf, half-halfling having its own rules. But, they actually ARE their own subrace (the Tallfellows) in 3.5 and 5e, without too much fuss or muss!

So proper game design has to have existed in 80 year old novel form before it makes sense to allow in pathfinder?

Because these are the CORE RULES of the game and not "Bedrooms of Golarion", yes.

Bardarok wrote:

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.

Yes apparently everyone wants to (and can!) breed with humans.

Based on how 'generic' half-elves in pf1 are, I can't see how simply choosing human with the elf-blooded feat, or vice versa, in pf2 would turn people away. The same could be said for half-orcs (choosing orc with the human-blooded, or vice versa). What this DOES do is allow DWORCS and DWELFS, right out of the core, which I have seen homebrewed so many times that it's odd that the devs didn't look in that direction.

If i had to bet, it is because you are projecting your own experience as a common theme among others.

Half Dwarf is a thing i have never even seen in pathfinder really.

If it was in the book or atleast hand made by me or another GM, sure it probably would be picked from time to time, but it isnt something people called to be made in the first place.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

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.

Yes apparently everyone wants to (and can!) breed with humans.

Yeah but until I see a Half-Human Shambling Mound, the edge will always go to our draconic overlords in terms of cross-breeding potency. Humans require there be two legs before making any half-abominations and that will always be their downfall.