Big Beards and Pointy Ears

@Bookrat and others: I made the mistake of allowing rolled stats. The stats were varied. The lowest was a 25-point build but with several stats below 10. Then there were the two that were 50+ point builds (the players got lucky). So to keep the first player alive, I upped her stats to be similar (though she still had a Strength of 9 initially).

This made the game unbalanced. I was giving all the foes Advanced Creature to compensate but that made the monsters too powerful (the extra armor class bonus was the kicker). Finally I realized that if I added +3 to each stat then the monsters would have equivalent stats to the players.

I was going to go with 25-point builds for my running my online group through Hell's Rebels but... with the advent of 2nd Edition, I'm holding off on the next campaign until the Playtest rules are out and using Core Playtest (and eventual 2nd edition rules) so the players don't need to do a rebuild a year into the campaign. In the meantime we'll take time off to play the Goblin games. ;)

I've run into frequently enough going through IRC, roll20, and at least three other virtual tabletops.

Well the common denominator here seems to be virtual tabletops for the houserule and PbP for not seeing it. Seem like a difference in communities.

Liking the looks of this so far. So long as Ancestry maintains the biological elements and Heritage take the cultural, it should work well.

Now is the implication that they scale with level, or do you have to spend an additional feat to rank it up?

I think elves should be shorter and live to at least 1000 years if not more. But there are things missing since the days of First Edition AD&D that have watered down the elves.

When you read background materials on elves over the years, they all mention in detail how elves practice on moving quietly and wear clothing that does not make any noise. This should grant a +2 in stealth or at least make it an automatic class skill.

Second, those same background stories tell how elves love to learn things on their own. Most elven communities lack a dedicated smithy or bakery because elves learn to do their own tasks. This should grant elves the bonus feat at first level and bonus skill point per level instead of the humans having that racial feature.

Next, I have NEVER understood how elves are fascinated with magic, but don't possess much benefits from this. Sure, they have the +2 to overcome spell resistance. But the bonus to identify magic properties and not have the ability to use it makes no sense. "Hey, that's a 12.7cm Russian machine gun, I see it in the magazines all the time. But I don't know how to use it," is what I am saying. Paizo should change this into making the Use Magic Item skill as a class skill for elves.

Movement is 30 feet. So are most other races. If they really want elves quick as a cat, either bump it up to 40 feet, grant the Dodge feat, or grant a +2 in initiative.

Next, Paizo needs to make armor specific to elves. Elven Chainmail really isn't very good.

Finally, officially bring back the Sylvan, Highborn, and Grey elves for more variety.

I can go on, but I'll stop here.

And what would you give other races to be as good as these overpowered omnicompetent Elf-Gods you want to see? :p

Huh what? Oh elfs ok nevermind...

And what would you give other races to be as good as these overpowered omnicompetent Elf-Gods you want to see? :p

I see where they're coming from. There has been a large disconnect from their lore and mechanics. I've stated in the past that if the lore is true, they probably shouldn't be a PC race but that's about as much of a sacred cow as you can get right next to wizards as a class. I hope something along these lines is addressed in 2E.

What about the lore for PF Elves would make them especially powerful? From what I understand Elves on Golarion had a great civilization long ago, left the planet to explore the universe, and then came back. Other than being long-lived and generally intelligent and dextrous (though frail) they never seemed noticeably more powerful than humans, at least in Pathfinder.

Now other fantasy settings, those have some OP Elves, but I think Pathfinder avoids it.

I have seen upper and/or lower limits on ability scores (with not always the same exact limits) in the Recruitment threads of several PbPs on these Messageboards, so this seems to be at least somewhat popular, although unless I'm forgetting one, I don't think any of the ones that I decided to follow had such a rule.

Quandary wrote:

Leyren wrote:

We're likely going from 12+con-modifier (e.g. elven wizard) to 22 (dwarven barbarian). With the elven -2 con and the dwarven +2 this results in a range of 12 points at level 1. [12 vs 24, 1:2]

Seems like a lot, but relatively, it stays about the same as in Pf1, only with higher numbers. Nevertheless, I don't feel comfortable with this huge difference.

PF1 actually had MORE proportional difference...

6 vs 14 (12 + 2 CON DIF) i.e. < 1:2 ratio (~133% increase), while what you described was exactly = 1:2 ratio (100% increase) including CON differential.
So introduction of racial HD/HP to 0HD races is LESS disparate than existing PF1 differential between Wizards/Barbarians.
There just isn't much difference vs. P1E starting play at Level 2 or with 1 NPC level to avoid swinginess except the extra HD is racially defined here.
You also ignore that one can choose to put floating bonus into negating racial penalty, CON in this case, if that is important to PC concept.

I tried to express that the relative difference is more or less the same, but not completely. 33% is a huge difference, I seem to have underestimated those 2 hit points there :P

Am I misunderstanding something or wouldn't the HP numbers in PF1 actually be 5hp vs 13hp? Assuming a base CON of 10, Elves' -2 makes for CON 8, or -1hp per HD. Dwarves' +2 makes for CON 12, or +1hp per HD.

Since we don't know the numbers for PF2 classes, that part of the equation is guesswork.

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.

Or you just like the idea of getting "moar stuff" and lobby for a removal of limitations...

Without having a full picture of how languages work, perhaps it would be possible to adjust the wording so that Ancestries with a 'racial' tongue can select it in lieu of the standard regional language?

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.

Or you just like the idea of getting "moar stuff" and lobby for a removal of limitations...

Given the general design philosophy at this point in Pathfinder's history has been "more options, not less" ...

Rogar Valertis wrote:

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.

Or you just like the idea of getting "moar stuff" and lobby for a removal of limitations...

Given the general design philosophy at this point in Pathfinder's history has been "more options, not less" ...

Yes, but it seems to me, some people want "moar". This thread is about a blog post focusing on Dwarves & Elves and we have some players who obviously don't care one bit but come on line to ask for a way for humans to easily get other race's options.

This is not about people "just" wanting more options. This is about some people wanting all the options with no limits whatsoever.

Limits define things, what they are and what they are not. Some people here like to claim to dislike limitations because they "need more freedom for their creativity" but in truth a really creative person looks at limits and finds a way to make a new idea work inside them. Creativity has nothing to do with gaming the system so to have all the options avaiable and then cherry pick the most powerful ones without taking the drawbacks as well.

The Mad Comrade wrote:

Rogar Valertis wrote:

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.

Or you just like the idea of getting "moar stuff" and lobby for a removal of limitations...

Given the general design philosophy at this point in Pathfinder's history has been "more options, not less" ...

Yes, but it seems to me, some people want "moar". This thread is about a blog post focusing on Dwarves & Elves and we have some players who obviously don't care one bit but come on line to ask for a way for humans to easily get other race's options.

This is not about people "just" wanting more options. This is about some people wanting all the options with no limits whatsoever.

Limits define things, what they are and what they are not. Some people here like to claim to dislike limitations because they "need more freedom for their creativity" but in truth a really creative person looks at limits and finds a way to make a new idea work inside them. Creativity has nothing to do with gaming the system so to have all the options avaiable and then cherry pick the most powerful ones without taking the drawbacks as well.

I'm not seeing that. What I'm seeing are people saying, "Dwarves in P1e get Defensive Training and Greed and Hatred and Hardy and Stability and Stonecutting and Weapon Familiarity at 1st level, and if we have to spend an ancestry feat every four levels* to get each of those separately in P2e, we'll have to be Mythic-level before we get to what used to be baseline Dwarf Commoner."

Basically, 'dwarves should be dwarfier from level 1,' not 'humans should be dwarfier.'

(You could substitute Elf, and although their list of baseline abilities in P1e is shorter, you'd still be pretty high-level before you "bought" Elven Immunities, Elven Magic, Keen Senses, and Weapon Familiarity.)

*I have seen this cited as the progression for Ancestry Feats but haven't been able to find where it was revealed, so this could be incorrect.

Liking how Elves and Dwarves are looking. Might play a Dwarf at some point. The assignable +2 will really help counter the Charisma penalty for those of us who want to go the Dwarven Paladin route.

I'd like it even more if it were an option to go +2 CON, +2 WIS, or +2 CON and WIS, but -2 CHA if they take both. Then they could start with 20 CHA, assuming ability scores are assigned like PF and not SF.

Thing is, a lot of those old racial benefits were useless to many characters anyway: My Elven Fighter doesn't need Weapon Familiarity he's already proficient with most of those due to his class. Likewise, Elven Magic is decidedly underwhelming for a character who can't cast spells...

Looks good overall. Waiting to see how ancestry feats are handed out to judge them.

One thing that does bug me is the lore: Elves only live to be 600 now? They used to be basically immortal, and there were elves running around over 1,000 years old! It's a key part of their mindset. Hope they take this out of the lore.

One thing that does bug me is the lore: Elves only live to be 600 now? They used to be basically immortal, and there were elves running around over 1,000 years old! It's a key part of their mindset. Hope they take this out of the lore.

Elves never lived that long in Pathfinder. Maximum age for Elves was 350+4d100 in 1st edition, as established in the ARG printed six years ago. I suspect you are thinking of a similar game in a different setting.

Source for ages

I would like to see them do something more with elven and even dwarven armors, the special ones, like elven chain.

Joana wrote:

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.

Easy. Make diagonals cost 7.5 feet.

So basically to get all the abilities a dwarf used to have at level 1 in 1e you would have take multiple feats over the course of several levels to get...meh.

several feats specifically given to the players and only usable by the players to flesh out the race.

I really like the potential of the ancestry system shown in the goblin, elven, and dwarven previews.

I am hoping that it will allow balanced drow, aasimar, tieflings, and other powerful races at level one with no level adjustment. Instead, you could have some flavorful level 1 options (Aasimar poetry, drow parkour, tiefling angst) with later levels unlocking more powerful abilities. Perhaps aasimar get a choice of SLAs if they take an ancestry feat with a minimum level of 5. Perhaps instead of light, yours can cast cure wounds or a divination spell. Perhaps instead of taking that feature, you took one that gives you spell resistance or faster healing.

Also, I would love if the term "feat" was changed to "feature," though that may cause confusion with classes. (Credit to The Mad Comrade)

ElfChampion466 wrote:

Movement is 30 feet. So are most other races. If they really want elves quick as a cat, either bump it up to 40 feet, grant the Dodge feat, or grant a +2 in initiative.

Most of you post seems to read as "I want Elves to be stronger than other choices" but this part is just factually wrong. Standard speed is now 25ft. Elves are faster, can get even faster with ancestry feats and also initiative doesn't exist.

It is getting really hard to keep track of what is official and speculation, particularly with the different sources (blog versus playtest podcast versus responses in the comments versus quotes from presentations).

Is there a "what we know so far" thread? I could really use one.

Dragon78 wrote:

So basically to get all the abilities a dwarf used to have at level 1 in 1e you would have take multiple feats over the course of several levels to get...meh.

several feats specifically given to the players and only usable by the players to flesh out the race.

I mean....it doesn't matter? You still run into the problem that you can't start as the same Dwarf/Elf/What have you that you could in PF1. You're now sort of a proto-dwarf, abilities wise, and you choose them as you level up.

If someone wants to play a PF1 Dwarf they'll be sorely disappointed by all the things they lose. Same for all the other races really.

If someone wants to play a PF1 Dwarf they'll be sorely disappointed by all the things they lose. Same for all the other races really.

That depends on how many picks/ancestry slots we have at first level. We don't really know what the new first level baseline will be and whether dwarves are being lowered to that mark or others are being elevated to dwarven standards.

I guarantee you we'll be getting more than one Ancestry feat at first level, specifically to avoid this problem and to allow for more variety between races.

Since I've seen a couple folks asking about Backgrounds, I'll repost this tidbit from elsewhere:

Stephen: The Background system "affects the skills that you're good at and it also your ability scores to a certain degree."

One thing i hated about starfinder was that stupid +1 to one ability for theme. It was really just a trap because if you increased an odd score to 18, the.bonus was completely irrelevant. To matter, not that odd scores matter much, you had to put it in an ability that you would never increase to 18. Plus you increase 4 abilities at a time, so the odds of you increasing a thematically-appropriate one approaches 100%. Also, if you put the score higher by even +1, it was probably more important to you than the one you didn't, but all of your 10s and 11s are the same, at 18, by 20th level. Better to just make it +2 to avoid the trap or remove it entirely. Finally, ironically, if theme matches class, you get somewhat more versatile in other abilities anyway. For example, human technomancer scholar starts with 13 INT instead of 12. That's 5 ability points instead of 4 to put anywhere else. I already acknowledged odd abilities don't really matter, but it feels like the scholar has more flexibility to be strong or dexterous or tough than non-scholars. in other words, crunch and storytelling are not improved by the +1.

I do hope that the Stat limit in SF is not present in PF 2.0.

Im hoping for stat limits a bit lower than even SF myself.

Realizing I've not commented on the blog post itself:

-Dwarves: I love the way the new ability scores are adjudicated. The rest seems about right but for 2 things. (1) I don't like Derros & Duregar substituting goblinoids as racial enemies. It feels as the developers retrofitting the dwarves in order to make room for goblins as a playable race and besides Derros and Duregar are not nearly as common as goblinoids are, which also implies a loss of power for the racial option. (2) Hardy only mentioning poison resistance makes me think the magical resistance part was taken away. We don't really know how magic works in PF2, so this may be due to power ballancing issues or because the option wasn't easy to implement. Be as it may it feels again as a huge loss in terms of power.

-Elves: enmity to demons fits the race's Golarion's concept very well but I don't think the same can be said for "setting neutral" elves. Having less hps will hurt but high base speed and nimble fit extremely well with the elven imagery and seem really good, considering how important movement usually is in PF.

(1) I don't like Derros & Duregar substituting goblinoids as racial enemies. It feels as thee developers retrofitting the dwarves in order to make room for goblins as a playable race and besides Derros and Duregar are not nearly as common as goblinoids are, which also implies a loss of power for the racial option.

As I've mentioned previously, this is almost certainly not why this is happening. It's happening because Golarion Dwarves have never had a grudge against goblins and only had the racial trait as a legacy issue.

As for game balance, that really depends on how big a bonus it is and the power of other Ancestry Feats.

I think have been amongst most forthright opposition to idea of Core Goblins, but that is exactly true: Golarion Dwarves never had particular anti-Goblin focus (although they may conflict with them as much as anybody else), the only reason they had them as Racial Hatred enemy in P1E was because of service to generic D&D / 3.x continuation.

Paizo explained how they no longer are holding themelves to that goal, that they now aim to more deeply integrate rules & setting, so ZERO surprise on that change. Which I think is good, because now every rules & bestiary is opportunity to flesh out setting more, if only in minor ways. Not to mention getting rid of things like Goblin Racial Hatred where you have to explain "oh that isn't really in Golarion, that's just generic D&D so ignore that when playing in Golarion".

Rogar Valertis wrote:

(1) I don't like Derros & Duregar substituting goblinoids as racial enemies. It feels as thee developers retrofitting the dwarves in order to make room for goblins as a playable race and besides Derros and Duregar are not nearly as common as goblinoids are, which also implies a loss of power for the racial option.

As I've mentioned previously, this is almost certainly not why this is happening. It's happening because Golarion Dwarves have never had a grudge against goblins and only had the racial trait as a legacy issue.

As for game balance, that really depends on how big a bonus it is and the power of other Ancestry Feats.

Am I wrong or in Golarion dwarves hunted goblins as well as orcs during the Quest for Sky? Seems to remember something about dwarves being offended when they tried to teach goblins how to "properly build" stuff and the attempt backfired (goblins being goblins it was the logical outcome though). Seems also to remember goblins claim dwarves used them as slaves.

As for poison it depends on how common posion will be in PF2. Even so it's almost guaranteed to be less prevalent than spells. Hardy was a really powerful racial trait in PF1 because spells were so prevalent and because it was possible to improve numbers to +5 which made the trait as good as a feat (with the issue of not being able to choose something different instead, if you didn't plan to often be hit with spells and poison, of course)

Am I wrong or in Golarion dwarves hunted goblins as well as orcs during the Quest for Sky? Seems to remember something about dwarves being offended when they tried to teach goblins to "properly build" stuff and got mortally offended when that backfired (goblins being goblins it was the logical outcome though).

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The Quest For Sky brought them into conflict with orcs, but I don't recall goblins ever even mentioned, and if they were it was as a very minor side issue.

As for poison it depends on how common posion will be in PF2. Even so it's almost guaranteed to be less prevalent than spells. Hardy was a really powerful racial trait in PF1 because spells were so prevalent and because it was possible to improve numbers to +5 which made the trait as good as a feat (with the issue of not being able to choose something different instead, if you didn't plan to often be hit with spells and poison, of course)

There may well also be an anti-spell Ancestry Feat. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised by such a thing at all.

Rogar Valertis wrote:

Am I wrong or in Golarion dwarves hunted goblins as well as orcs during the Quest for Sky? Seems to remember something about dwarves being offended when they tried to teach goblins to "properly build" stuff and got mortally offended when that backfired (goblins being goblins it was the logical outcome though).

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The Quest For Sky brought them into conflict with orcs, but I don't recall goblins ever even mentioned, and if they were it was as a very minor side issue.

Nope, he's right. Well, not about the "angry because goblins couldn't build" part, that I'm not sure. But definitely right abut fighting goblins and orcs during the Quest for the Sky.

"As they pushed upward through the darkness, impelled by prophecy, dwarves clashed with orcs and goblins; the legacy of those ancient battles remains at the forefront of dwarven battle-training today."

This is what I found on the matter after a brief search:

Dwarven memories are long, and past transgressions not soon forgotten. Nearly every dwarf upon Golarion feels the pain and humiliation of the loss of Koldukar to the orcs of Belkzen, and was raised with tales of long and lightless wars with orc- and goblinkind. From an early age, dwarves are taught to channel their anger against their ancient foes into telling blows, so that orcs, goblins, and their vile kin might never again breach the gates of dwarven strongholds.

According to their own myths, the dwarves were forged by Torag in ancient times.[4] They lived and worked in their forges and cities in Nar-Voth, fighting against the orcs and goblinoid races and among themselves for eons.[5] Late in the Age of Darkness (ca. -5133 AR) they united under King Taargick and began to push towards the surface, in what would later come to be known as the Quest for Sky. They inadvertently herded their ancient enemies, the orcs, ahead of them, and finally emerged onto the surface around -4987 AR.[6] Once they established themselves, they built the vast and magnificent Sky Citadels. Though they have waned since, due to wars with orcs and terrors from the Darklands, most of the citadels still stand.[7]

And some interesting facts about Golarion's goblins...

The first goblins came from the blood spilled by four barghests Lamashtu stole from Asmodeus’s kennel, beasts she initially released eons ago to prey upon the land’s stillprimitive natives. The barghests found that, when they spilled human blood, it grew into strange creatures that were like smaller versions of themselves—goblins. As the barghests grew in power, they whelped litter after litter of young. With their children in tow, the four barghests set about building kingdoms for themselves—these tales are told in what goblins call the First Songs.

In most (if not all) of elven backgrounds, the elves were THE pinnacle race that either fell from grace into a shadow of their former glory (Forgotten Realms) or they simply never really evolved into something stronger. In my interpretation, elves are supposed to be badass, but lack the fertility to rule by the millions or the sturdiness to take a hit. Usually, there's one elf to every 500 humans and so on. Therefore, the elven kingdoms are all about quality instead of quantity, which means they could never rule the entire world even with special abilities or High Magic. This should be reflected in good traits, but nothing along the line of 'AUTOMATIC-DEMIGOD" beings. So, how can this be done? And at what point is something overpowered?

In most (if not all) of elven backgrounds, the elves were THE pinnacle race that either fell from grace into a shadow of their former glory (Forgotten Realms) or they simply never really evolved into something stronger. In my interpretation, elves are supposed to be badass, but lack the fertility to rule by the millions or the sturdiness to take a hit. Usually, there's one elf to every 500 humans and so on. Therefore, the elven kingdoms are all about quality instead of quantity, which means they could never rule the entire world even with special abilities or High Magic. This should be reflected in good traits, but nothing along the line of 'AUTOMATIC-DEMIGOD" beings. So, how can this be done? And at what point is something overpowered?

Pathfinder elves aren't super-better than everybody else.

They're getting the fastest movement, with an option for even more movement.
They're getting an option to be able to do some magic, even without being a caster.
They're getting a few hundred years of lifespan over humans, with an option to give that some mechanical weight in the short term.

It's overpowered if the options for elves are noticeably better than the non-elf options.

In Forgotten Realms and in basically all D&D settings elves are not "the pinnacle race". In Dragon Age they used to be powerful but are now reduced to nomadic lifestyle or living as slaves/servants and they are discriminated against by humans. In Warhammer Roleplay Game elves are powerful spellcasters but not the most powerful of all (those would be slaans), and they are not better warriors than dwarves let alone chaos warriors or vampires. On the contrary the lost the War of the Beard against dwarves and their colonies in the old world were mostly razed to the ground by the dwarves vindicative fury. I could go on with this list.

In truth the "setting" were elves are above most other races is Middle Earth. Tolkien envisioned elves as "lesser angels", with Istari being more powerful angels as well and gods like Manwe being the equivalent of archangels. Eru/Iluvatar was God and Morgoth was Satan. Sauron was a demon liutenant to Morgoth instead. Also note that Galadriel was meant as a representation of the Virgin Mary. It all worked in Tolkien vision and works in the Middle Earth (besides it's not very common knowledge) it does not work as well in other settings.

Tolkien was a genius and undoubtedly the most important fantasy writer who ever lived. His influence is felt to this day in most western fantasy settings. Elves being more powerful than other races is not a widespread trope though. Most settings have elves as long lived creatures but they are not shown to be as powerful as Tolkien "angel-elves" are.

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 think two ancestry feats or one ancestry feat and another feat will be an human option since humans won't have darkvision.

OK, so those aspects of Ancestry ascribed to cultural influence are 'Heritage', but is there a term for those derived specifically from birth? If not, it seems like something that may be required

OK, so those aspects of Ancestry ascribed to cultural influence are 'Heritage', but is there a term for those derived specifically from birth? If not, it seems like something that may be required

Pretty sure it's the opposite. The "Heritage" Ancestry feats are the ones you can only get at 1st level because they are biological, like "Hardy". The others, the more "cultural" ones and the ones you "work" to develop are just Ancestry Feats, like "Ancestral Hatred".

Easy. Make diagonals cost 7.5 feet.

Oh I hope not. I am hoping that things that hinder movement are static modifier not fractional penalties. And get rid of the extra cost for diagonal movement. It’s an unnecessary complication that is hard for new players to understand and even hard for many experienced players to figure out without counting their movement one square at a time. So someone gains a few feet when traveling diagonally. Who cares? It’s a small number for most creatures and the ones most able to exploit it already have enough movement to not need the bonus anyway. It’s archaic and unnecessary. K.I.S.S. Please

Easy. Make diagonals cost 7.5 feet.

It's closer to 7'.

a^2+b^2=c^2

5^2+5^2=50

Square-root of 50' is 7.07' and change.

Round to 7' if you're going to use a flat number.

So are elves supposed to be the katana of races ancestries?

"totoro” wrote:

Easy. Make diagonals cost 7.5 feet.

Oh I hope not. I am hoping that things that hinder movement are static modifier not fractional penalties. And get rid of the extra cost for diagonal movement. It’s an unnecessary complication that is hard for new players to understand and even hard for many experienced players to figure out without counting their movement one square at a time. So someone gains a few feet when traveling diagonally. Who cares? It’s a small number for most creatures and the ones most able to exploit it already have enough movement to not need the bonus anyway. It’s archaic and unnecessary. K.I.S.S. Please

I care about the extra movement cost diagonally. I hope they keep it.

Since the grid doesn't exist in-game, if you let diagonals be 1 for 1, I can move 1.4 times faster by simply performing a coordinate rotation on the grid, to make sure that the diagonal direction is always along the path I want to take. That effectively lets me get 35 feet of movement out of every 25 foot move. This will also drastically help with overland movement rates. 40% faster speeds along certain directions would be highly noticeable to anyone living in the fictional world.

Now, 1.5 squares is of course also a rounding error, but it's less of an error (6% instead of 41%)and also, since it's rounding up, not down, actually makes it slightly better to just move along the cardinal directions instead of the diagonal.

totoro wrote:

Easy. Make diagonals cost 7.5 feet.

It's closer to 7'.

a^2+b^2=c^2

5^2+5^2=50

Square-root of 50' is 7.07' and change.

Round to 7' if you're going to use a flat number.

I think the point was, if half-movement is 12.5 feet, it would eliminate some math and rounding to make diagonals cost 7.5 feet. "Okay, I'm using Mobility to move at half-speed so I'll go forward one square at 5 feet and diagonal one square at 7.5 feet. Move action done."

(I think it'd be easier not to set standard speed at an odd number if you're going to have things like "move at half speed" in the game, but eh.)

(I think it'd be easier not to set standard speed at an odd number if you're going to have things like "move at half speed" in the game, but eh.)

I'm hoping the actual rule for Mobility is phrased something like "each square you want to move and avoid reactions costs double" for that very reason. If the standard speed is 25 it seems silly to make an ability that interacts with it so poorly.

So are all races getting 3 ability score increases? In the goblin preview that said goblins are unique and get a 3rd ability score boost, but dwarves and elf get a 3rd ability boost as well. Or have a misread something. If all or nearly half the races get a 3rd ability boost, I wouldn't really call that unique.

If we played on a non grid surface, I would agree with the movement issues, but we don’t. Mixing square-based tactical movement (digital) with foot-based speeds (analog) creates problems that cannot be accurately represented in game. We need to make up our minds one way or the other. If you’re going to base tactical movement on squares, then list it that way in the rules. If you do that, you don’t need to account for diagonals because it’s still the same number of squares whether it’s strsight line or diagonal. If you want to use real numbers, then abandon the grid system and use tape measures.

So are all races getting 3 ability score increases? In the goblin preview that said goblins are unique and get a 3rd ability score boost, but dwarves and elf get a 3rd ability boost as well. Or have a misread something. If all or nearly half the races get a 3rd ability boost, I wouldn't really call that unique.

Basically it's still up in the air exactly how the floating 3rd score works. It could be to any score of your choosing, or it could be tied to a specific ancestry of yours.

They thinkering on it :3